Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
