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.