Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett 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 those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
>>not be free.
>
> Really? Wow. That's insane.
Why? You're just arguing our non compos mentis state by assertion
here. Please provide evidence of our certifiable insanity, grounded
only in the DFSG. References to some ideal of sanity will be
disregarded.
-Brian
(DAMN it's good to have a Safire on this list.)
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: