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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
> upstream.

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 | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: