Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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.
Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use it and sells
it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer ? And how is it fairer as
applied to a modification i make to a BSDed work, which, not being fair
myself, i also put under the BSD ?
In any case, this is no reason for it to be DFSG non-free ?
> > 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.
Yes, i have been wondering about this too. Maybe adding the annotated version
of the licence would be a good idea.
> > > 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.
Well, i can't agree to this, but more on this later.
> - Matt