On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
> license. It still feels non-free to me.
Agreed: I'm another one who feels that QPL 3b is non-free.
It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my code
than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
I feel that this does not satisfy DFSG 3, because I'm allowed to
distribute my modifications "under the same terms as the license of the
original software" to anyone I like *but* to the initial developer.
The initial developer automatically gets a more permissive license grant
for my modifications...
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgpNO5tEP83OB.pgp
Description: PGP signature