On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of > > > your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ? > > I believe this extra permission violates DFSG#3. I can't release my > > changes under the terms I received; I have to make a special additional > > license grant, granting the original author permissions to my work that > > he explicitly denied me to his. > > I am not 100 % convinced of this being the case, but even if it where, sure, > there is a disymetry here, but then there is a disymetry anyway, since > upstream wrote most of the code, and you only provide a small patch, and use > it. > > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original > code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of those > correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that each one is a I think it'd be pretty clear which was which. Your work was developed as a result of what was already provided under the QPL. The work resulting from the combination of the original software and your patch is a derived work of both, but thankfully the initial developer isn't bound by the terms of the QPL because he got an all-permissions, so you've got bupkis. Similarly, any modifications that the original author does to your work don't fall under the "modified versions" rule, because the initial developer didn't need to accept the QPL to modify your work. > derived work of the other, each being QPLed, and so each get the same licence > and the same benefit, in particular your right to claim upstream's code is a > derived work of your own stuff, and can thus be incorportated in your own code > base, provided upstream incorporate your work. The QPL doesn't talk of derived works as such[1], merely modified versions of the original software. Your modification, though it may constitute 90% of the resulting codebase, is still a modified version of a QPL'd work. (In that case, you'd be nuts not to just rewrite the other 10% and freely licence it, but we'll leave that alone for now). All modifications of a QPL'd work have to follow the guidelines in 3b. - Matt [1] There is no matches on 'deriv' (hence catching derivative and derived) in the licence at http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html, nor, before you bring it up, in the annotations linked from that page.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature