* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 12:09: > 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.
On reflection I think you are right. There is the danger that 3rd party recipients will never know this. Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
