Re: The QPL licence
Joachim Breitner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > > 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.
> > 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.
> I thought about that, but then I thought: "If [..] requests" - the
> desert island guy can't be requested. But then, he might: cloud
> painting, morse-earth-quakes, message-in-a-bottle...
> Seems to be a corner case, and I have not yet an opinion on that.
How about someone without a net connection who got the original
software on CD's? A reporter could talk about people in Ghana
modifying the software to suit their needs. The initial developer
could read the paper and write a letter.
In addition, it requires private modifications to be made public.
That precludes any modifications that include sensitive modifications
(e.g. hardwired nuclear missle codes).