Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at > all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions" > without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
Clause 3(b) seems to require forced distribution of some sort, but I'm not entirely sure about that. > Viewed in that light, QPL 6 gives an *additional* permission to > develop application programs and distribute them under *another* > free(ish) license than the QPL, provided that one submits to forced > distribution. Without this permission the license would still pass > DFSG #3 (due to the GPL-like clauses 3 and 4), so it should not be > considered non-free just because it is there. Your interpretation seems to read clause 6 entirely out of the license. I mean, what is it left restricting? The only material difference between clause 6 and clause 3 is the forced publication requirement 6(c).