Joseph Carter wrote: > > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies > > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and > > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy > > if they ask. The QPL is completely silent on personal uses, disallows > > "private" distributions, and is hunky-dory with public distributions. > > Troll Tech indicates it is their intention to catch people who are not > distributing code to cough up a copy. Stark contrast to what you claim > here. Their intent seems to be about 9/10 of what a license on a piece of > software means in the US at least, based on what little case law there is > on the matter.
The only thing I am claiming is what is written in the license, since I have nothing else to go by. But I am curious, how do they intend to find out which people are not distributing code? How could they possibly know? I think what they are attempting to do with Section 6c is to eliminate "private" distributions. The Corel beta test comes to mind. IMHO, it's a lot less irksome than those freeware licenses that say "for personal use only." David Johnson
