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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action
From:       forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2000-06-14 2:43:36
[Download RAW message or body]

Don Sanders wrote:
> 
> > There is some misunderstanding about section 6, subsection 2 of the
> > QPL.
> 
> Yes, I've seen that.
> 
> > Could it be made clear somehow that "distribution" means the same thing
> > in the QPL as it dose in the GPL ?
> 
> Well if you have a suggestion I'm listening, but I'm not to sure how much
> more clearer than you can get than by using the same word, ie "distribution".
 
I mislabeled the offending section of the QPL.  It's section 6c.

  6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other 
  software items that link with the original or modified versions of the 
  Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following 
  requirements:

  c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial 
  developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must 
  supply one.

Section 6c is subject to section 6 which means it applies when your
software
is distriuted.  If memory serves, it is for those times when the author 
redifines "distribute" to not include sending the software to 50,000
BETA
testers or making it availeble "only" to members of the AMA or a none US
afiliate.  I wold fix it by stating it this way.

<Forge's 6c>

  c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial 
  developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must 
  supply one.  

  c1. As a special exemption, if your software is distributed under the 
  GPL and you can demonstrate that your distribution dose not violate
the 
  GPL in any way you do not have to send us a copy of your software.  

  Note that by distributing your software under the terms of the GPL you 
  agree that any holder of a copy may redistribute without fear of 
  retribution.
  
This basically says hey, we are making demands but they don't apply if
your 
stuff is under the GPL.  However the GPL says you can't dismiss an
employee
for "redistributing" GPLed software.  It's a bluff.  Who wants to call
it?
Maybe that last paragraph doesn't belong in the actual license.

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