Re: The QPL licence
Joachim Breitner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I ee a problem with
> 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
> What if I have my family-only private piece of software that I use
> together with the Software, and give that to my brother (i.e. I
> distribute it), and the initial developer knows about it, he can make me
> give it to him? Badly constructed examples, but this smells non-free to
To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test. If I make
modifications, then I have to give the initial developer a copy, even
if I am physically unable to do so. This differs from the "give
source if you give binaries" clause of the GPL, because if you can
give binaries then it is probably not too difficult to give source.
However, I thought that the QPL was judged to be free in the past.