[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: A more serious QPL-1.0 problem
From: "Adam J. Richter" <adam () yggdrasil ! com>
Date: 1999-03-13 6:03:56
[Download RAW message or body]
>>>> = Adam J. Richter <adam@yggdrasil.com>
>>> = Jeremy Blosser <jblosser@firinn.org>
>> = Adam
> = Jeremy
>> >> | b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
>> >> | license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to
>> >> | the initial developer of the Software to distribute your
>> >> | modification in future versions of the Software provided
>> >> | such versions remain available under these terms IN ADDITION
>> >> | TO ANY OTHER LICENSE(S) OF THE INITIAL DEVELOPER.
>> >>
>> >> This is a further restriction to the GPL, since the GPL does
>> >> not require such a permission grant, and it is illegal to publish
>> >> modifications to QPL'ed software without making such a grant.
>> >
>> >It is not illegal to publish modifications to QPL'ed software without
>> >making such a grant.
>>
>> It is illegal for the practical purpose of distributing a useful
>> derivative work. Per section 4 and 4c of the QPL, the machine-executable
>> modified work can only be distributed if the modifications are QPL'ed:
>
>While I agree that 4c is not at all desirable, I wouldn't agree that one
>has to be able to distribute binary versions of a derivative work for it to
>be useful. You are still free to make a modification, license it under the
>GPL, and distribute the source.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it would be a
violation of the GPL (we are talking about GPL'ed modifications) to
produce a work that recombined those patches with QPL'ed material
(since QPL adds further restrictions), even in a distribution
subterfuge scenario like "user does the compile." So, I am curious as
to what method of practical use you had in mind.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic