Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Josh Triplett wrote:
>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.
Why is it necessary for a free software license to support certain
business models, especially when (say) the GPL prevents certain other
business models?
>The right to make private modifications is essential.
People keep saying this, but nobody's said *why*. It's been pointed out
how the lack of this hurts certain people, but many license provisions
that we're entirely happy with hurt other people.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: