Josh Triplett wrote: >Consider someone writing Free Software under a contract with a >particular business. (This is a common business model for Free >Software.) The contractor is then distributing the software to that >business (assuming that the contractor excluded work-for-hire in the >contract; otherwise it would be internal distribution within a single >legal entity). Commonly, the software would be private to that >business. If this software is based on GPLed software, this model works >fine: all those who received a binary can get source and have all the >necessary freedoms, and they choose not to exercise their freedom to >distribute. If this software is based on QPLed software, however, the >model no longer works, because the contractor must also distribute a >copy to the original developer of the QPLed software on request.
Why is it necessary for a free software license to support certain business models, especially when (say) the GPL prevents certain other business models? >The right to make private modifications is essential. People keep saying this, but nobody's said *why*. It's been pointed out how the lack of this hurts certain people, but many license provisions that we're entirely happy with hurt other people. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
