* 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