Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider > it. > > > be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6 > > only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the > > rest can have any free licence, more or less, except that there's an > > additional requirement (6c) that might be problematic. > > Edmund. Why don't you reply to my above question.
Because I have already expressed my reasoning as clearly as I can. The concept of granting additional restrictions doesn't make much sense to me. Note that QPL 6 does NOT start with "If you develop ..."; it starts with "You may develop ...". On the face of it, I can't read this as a further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is, then I will have to accept it as such, and then I can agree that the QPL is not a free software licence, because I don't think the restrictions in QPL 6 are compatible with the way the DFSG are traditionally applied. Anyway, I suggest you wait a bit before talking to upstream about QPL 6, because it might turn out that the consensus is that it doesn't matter for DFSG-freeness.