On 13/11/09 11:58, Sam Liddicott wrote: > We may have to disagree, I'm just giving my reasons here:
Yeah; I think we're both agreed it's extremely murky :) But just to clear up the point I was trying to make: >> There is no sub-license, so you cannot >> license it to others yourself. >> > So althought clause 2 says: > 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided > that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - > copyright, > trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial > developer > of the Software, is distributed. > > It doesn't in any way mean the person who receives it has permission to > also distribute it what they receive? > My point about being able to sub-licence is pretty specific. If you have a license, there must be a licensor. If the person you get it from has the ability to sub-license, then they [may be|are] the licensor; otherwise, it's the copyright holder. So what I was saying originally was that because the QPL has no sub-licensing rights (which are otherwise reserved), the licensor *must* be the original copyright holder. And the original copyright holder isn't offering the QPL. They're offering the QPL with specific usage restrictions. I think it's unlikely that their distribution of the QPL text with the software somehow overrides their licensing wishes. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
