Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
>>
>> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
>> distributed modifications.
>>
>> Why do we believe in one of these but not the other?
>
>The second looks like a "royalty or other fee" given to the copyright
>holder.
How is the first not a fee given to the recipient? "You must give a
dollar to everyone you give the binaries to" certainly would be. The
fact that the fee is not payable to upstream doesn't mean that it's not
an upstream fee - upstream has dictated that you must provide something
of value to the recipient. 2 clause BSD doesn't have this problem.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: