Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
Why does that result in one being a fee and the other not being a fee?
If I distribute under GPL 3(b) and someone then distributes that under
3(c) I'm bound to pass on my valuable modifications to people I didn't
provide binaries to myself. How is that not a fee? Why is upstream
> In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author many more
> rights with the software than you had -- he can take it proprietary,
> and you can't. Also, no matter who you want to give those
> modifications to, you have to give that broad license to the upstream.
Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG. Appeals to
nebulous concept of "platonic non-freeness" will be rejected. Answers
should cover at least 3 sides and take 10 minutes. (5 marks).
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org