On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Description: PGP signature