[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The QPL licence

On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.

discusses clause 6.

I'm not sure the conclusion is clear, though.  #3 seems to apply to
patches, #4 seems to apply to distributing binaries, but #6 seems to
attempt to apply to linked applications.

I'm also a little curious about:

"Choice of Law

This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
be settled by Amsterdam City Court."

I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
sentence a choice of venue?  It doesn't feel free.

It'd be nice if this license would go away.  I'd recommend the same thing
that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the upstream authors to
dual license under the GPL, just like Trolltech did.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: