QPL clause 6 irrelevant?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Greetings,

I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html

which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause
3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses 3 and 4 of the QPL being the
DFSG-free path.  In that case, clause 6 is irrelevant.  I brought this
up in June

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00049.html

regarding libcwd.  At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I
haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle.  If you look at the
ocaml licensing page

  http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html

you could argue that the ocaml authors agree with this interpretation.
So, first of all, does anyone dissent now?  If not, I think as long as
the ocaml authors agree with that interpretation, clause 6 is not a
problem.

However, the choice of venue is still a problem.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu