home at alexhudson.com
Fri Nov 13 10:40:16 UTC 2009
On 13/11/09 10:25, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>> I wouldn't be so sure of your ground.
> I perhaps gave the wrong impression - speaking personally, I was so
> unsure of my ground that I didn't use the software at all.
Yeah, probably wise. There are an increasing number of these "standard
license under certain conditions" set-ups in use, which I think is
entirely unclear and unhelpful.
>> The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is
>> worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give
>> that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on).
> No, but the QPL under which which the rights holder licensed to a
> non-commercial user does give that use to pass the QPL rights on.
Actually, I don't think it does. There is no sub-license, so you cannot
license it to others yourself. There is also no automatic license clause
which makes it clear that the original licensor grants an automatic
license to recipients under solely QPL terms. (the GPL, as an example,
is *much* clearer on this point).
Usually, having a license text like this gives you in affect an
automatic license, but the problem here is that this isn't the complete
license: it's missing the restriction on use clause that the original
distributor had. It's corrupt, and conflicted.
Saying there is no usage restriction relies on an argument that the
incomplete license included with distribution trumps the license as
offered originally. I think that's a tough argument to make stick; it's
possible it would, but I wouldn't like the odds.
More information about the Discussion