Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
> > to address the non-freeness of 3b:
> Well, in the orginal summary, there was no mention of 3b, so ...
> > b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
> > license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
> > initial developer of the Software to distribute your
> > modification in future versions of the Software provided such
> > versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
> > other license(s) of the initial developer.
> > which allows the initial developer to take code I've written and
> > distribute it in proprietary ways, even though I don't get that
> > privilege with respect to his code.
> Notice the part about :
> to distribute your
> modification in future versions of the Software provided such
> versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
> other license(s) of the initial developer.
> The change can only apply to future versions of the software, which are
> released under the QPL, and may also be licenced under some other licence.
And that other licence allows the initial developer to sell my
modifications under another licence. I don't get the ability to sell his
modifications under another licence. Doesn't seem real fair.
> Notice what the annotated QPL has to say about this :
For anyone who may have missed my previous message (not you Sven, I know you
wrote this before I wrote mine), the annotated QPL as written by Trolltech
has no real effect unless Trolltech is the copyright holder.
> > Why are you justifying INRIA's code hoarding in this way?
> Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
> appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
OK, how about code exploitation? Unfair exploitation? I'm not quite sure
of the exact term I'm looking for, but it's not a positive one. Unbalanced
is close, but not quite right.