Re: QPL clause 6 irrelevant?
On 2004-07-22 21:14:29 +0100 Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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. [...]
Clause 1 of the QPL contains the wording: "You are granted the
non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to
and comply with any and all conditions in this license." For
comparison, the closest in the GPL is its section 5, but given its s2
explicitly includes s1, and s3 includes s2 and s1, the summing of
conditions seems to be clear anyway.
Do we have to comply with any and all applicable conditions in the
QPL? Both c3 and additionally c6 if the software is both
"modifications to the Software" and "application programs, reusable
components and other software items that link with the original or
modified versions of the Software", for example. Is there something
I've not noticed which shows this isn't the intent and voids c1 in
The QPL wasn't quoted in full in the 2003/03 thread, so maybe Henning
Makholm missed it when forming his "alternatives rather than addition"
view. That is not to insult anyone, as opinions were only asked about
a narrow part of the QPL, AFAICT.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast