Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
> > Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
> > >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
> > >happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to distribute it
> > >before he's ready! This is no issue at all.
> > Am I reading a different license here? The copy of the QPL at
> > http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html says:
<snip>
>Something can be distributed without making the whole thing available
>to the public.
Yes. I know. But read the context - Nathaneal said "If the user is
really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and happens to talk
about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to distribute it before he's
ready! This is no issue at all.". The QPL does not oblige you to do
anything if "the user is really doing stuff privately". It *only* comes
into play when the user wants to distribute.
>GPL does not force you to give the modifications to the big bad
>world. QPL does not either. Some licenses do.
>
>QPL just insists that the copyright holder can insist that the
>modifier/ person who created a dependent work provide sources of _his_
>work. Even if the new work is only depending on the QPL'ed
>software. It need not be even a derivative.
Yes, it's different to the GPL. When do its requirements cause actual
problems?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: