Matthew Garrett wrote: > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote: >>I consider that to be a fee consistent with the expansion of Free Software. >>In order to distribute modified binaries, I have to licence my source to the >>recipient as well. That has clear freedom-enhancing properties (Now With >>Freesol, for added Freeness!) The QPL says I must give a carte-blanche >>licence to the initial developer of the work I modify. I don't see how that >>is enhancing Free Software. > > The reason I feel this makes approximately no real difference is the > following: > > 1) We (that is, Debian) generally assume that copyleft licenses > strengthen free software more than BSD style licenses. > > 2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced > distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style > permissions grant. Upstream could subsume it into their closed product > anyway. > > 3) The QPL is closer to a copyleft than a BSD license. In most cases it > safeguards the availability of source. > > I would argue that there are no cases in which the QPL is "worse" than a > BSD-style license that required copies to be given to the upstream > author, and in most cases it's "better". As a result, I think the > argument collapses to the forced distribution clause rather than the > permissions grant clause. I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an all-permissive license is obnoxious, but still Free. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature