[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: New QPL online.  0.99
From:       Jeremy Blosser <jblosser () firinn ! org>
Date:       1999-02-28 2:50:41
[Download RAW message or body]


Kevin Forge [forgeltd@usa.net] wrote:
> Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > I'm reading posts from you and others on /. that claim the patch
> > clause is
> > gone, yet 0.99 still reads "3. You may make modifications to the Software
> > and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the
> > Software, such as patches.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is the key change.  It doesn't have to be a patch.  It just
> has to be distinct.  If your changes are in a separate file.  Or
> in a clearly marked subsection that should also work. 
[snip]
> Making that section obscure was I think deliberate.  It encorages
> patches but it dosn't requier them.  

I'd still suggest making the wording clearer.  "Separate" really implies a
different file, IMO.  I don't think adding the "such as patches" and
claiming this allows marked inline changes to the original source really
suffices.  This is a legal document, implication and vague language should
be avoided.  The only advantage I see to having it worded obscurely is that
it may (theoretically) technically allow changes other than patches (though
that would be up to a court to decide) but makes it sound enough like it
has to be a patch that most ppl will think it has to be a patch.

At the very least, I suggest it be changed to read "...separate from the
Software, such as patches or clearly marked changes to the original file,"
to make it clear such a thing is allowed.

> > Also, I see we still have (4c): [snip]
> 
> Such discrimination doesn't go beyond that inherent in the GPL.
> The GPL requires ALL modifications to be GPL.  No exceptions.

Well, I'm no fan of the GPL, so the "the GPL doesn't do that either"
argument doesn't mean much to me. ;)

> > I don't have a serious problem with either of these, personally, I just
> > mention them for discussion so we all know what this thing says and make
> > sure it says what it is supposed to.
> 
> Neither do I.  I am left to ask.  What dose the GPL mean by under the 
> terms of this license ?  If it means it must be GPL then most Linux
> apps aren't legal since the LGPL isn't the GPL ( no matter how it's 
> sliced ).  
[snip]

If you're arguing from the perspective of GPL compatibility, that's not
really where I'm coming from.  The GPL is IMO confusing and not very well
worded and I'm mostly interested in seeing a license that doesn't have
these problems.  A good, solid open source license that is easy to
understand and use would be a great boon to the community, and I think the
QPL could be just that if it doesn't contain ambiguity or other unresolved
issues.

-- 
Jeremy Blosser   |   jblosser@firinn.org   |   http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"Would you fight to the death, for that which you love?
                   In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?"
                                             -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]