Matthew Garrett wrote: > Mahesh T. Pai wrote: >>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? Consider someone writing Free Software under a contract with a particular business. (This is a common business model for Free Software.) The contractor is then distributing the software to that business (assuming that the contractor excluded work-for-hire in the contract; otherwise it would be internal distribution within a single legal entity). Commonly, the software would be private to that business. If this software is based on GPLed software, this model works fine: all those who received a binary can get source and have all the necessary freedoms, and they choose not to exercise their freedom to distribute. If this software is based on QPLed software, however, the model no longer works, because the contractor must also distribute a copy to the original developer of the QPLed software on request. The right to make private modifications is essential. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature