Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
> >> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
> >
> >That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
> >you may distribute source, or binaries plus source; you are not granted
> >permission to distribute binaries alone).  Similarly, (under various
> >licenses), you may only distribute with ChangeLogs attached, only with
> >copyright notices, only with a copy of the license attached, only in the
> >form of an "original" plus "patches", etc.  Distribution only on CD is also
> >such a restriction, but an unacceptable one.  
> 
> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution
> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free?

If that were the only way to distribute the code, then yes, that would
be non-free.  Fortunately, we have 3(a).

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu