Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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
Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody has the same rights.
- Matt
Reply to: