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

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
> author).

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.

Reply to: