Matthew Garrett wrote: > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>But I could do the same to their work under a BSD licence. I can't do that >>with a QPL-licenced work. It's all about equality. It's not necessarily a >>*good* outcome, but it's a *better* outcome. > > I don't think a license that allows people to produce closed products is > a good license. I think a license that allows precisely one person to > produce a closed product is better than one that allows many people to > do so. I still don't think it's good, but I certainly don't think it's > non-free. Why is equality so much of an issue? Very well put. That's exactly my reasoning behind saying the "upstream gets an all-permissive license" requirement is acceptable and just obnoxious. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature