Re: The Affero license
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Clause 6 still doesn't come into play if the derived application is
> > > released under the QPL itself, in which case one has the choice of
> > > distributing under clauses 3 and 4 instead.
> > >
> > > This is no worse than a GPL'ed library (of which Debian does
> > > distribute a few).
> > Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a
> > problem, even if you object to all forced publication requirements.
> Can someone spell this out (again?) for my crippled mind?
> This might be good fodder for the FAQ.
The problematic QPL clause only applies as part of a special exception
in the license: certain kinds of derivative works which you don't have
to license under the QPL itself.