Re: The QPL licence
martin f krafft wrote:
> I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
> argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
> argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
> there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no "competition"
> from projects building up on years of his work.
Free software licenses must allow forks. Even if they discourage them.
That's part of what it means to be 'free software' -- allowing someone else
to make modified versions, *even if you don't want them to*.
Requiring proper copyright statements and acknowledgements of the original
authors is normal and present in most free software licenses; and these
requirements mean that any 'competition' will have to give him credit.
This is enough for most people. :-)
> I can completely understand this line of reasoning, and I find it
> hard to argue against that. If you have convincing arguments, share
> them with me (or just post them here, I sent the thread link to the
If he definitely doesn't want it to be under a DFSG-free license, then,
well, that's what he wants. If he does want it to be under a DFSG-free
license, he has to allow for the possibility of forks. A big "Please don't
fork without offering me your code first; I consider it rude and
counterproductive" notice is fine, of course.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.