Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> 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).
>
> In the absence of 3(a), the GPL would be non-free? Has this been
> discussed here before?

It's been discussed before.  The loose and weak consensus was that in
the absence of 3(a), the GPL would not have a clear way to freely
distribute modifications.  The consensus was loose and weak because
nobody seemed particularly interested in the topic -- it's such a
weird hypothetical that it's not very high priority.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu