home at alexhudson.com
Fri Nov 13 12:09:05 UTC 2009
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 -
> trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial
> 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.
More information about the Discussion