[...] Find some arguments that don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more than just handwave madly to convince me about the "fee" one) and I'll listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth discussing things much further.
Before I start, I would just like to curse how out of practice I am at constructing neat arguments. Here we go:
1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: "The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
What is this "royalty or other fee"? I claim it is the normal definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale transaction. A normal definition in English law is from Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847: "An act or forebearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable."
Consider a developer distributing an application that links with a QPL'd work to a small group, not the general public. This developer must promise to give works produced by them to the licensor in exchange for the copyright licence. The promise is enforceable. The licensing is the price for which the promise is bought. In short, the promise is a fee!
So, this developer is required to pay a fee. Therefore, a QPL-covered work seems not to follow DFSG 1.
The GPL doesn't have this problem, as you are not forced to promise to give anything to the licensor. Even if you do give something to them, that's a simple gift. It's not a fee because it wasn't a promise you gave in exchange for the licensing.
OK. What's wrong with the above picture?IANAL and probably shouldn't be trusted near legal dictionaries again. ;-)
-- 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