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. Well, if that were the case, why does Section 6 kick in only when there is a distribution? > 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. That may be, but it's not their "inner thoughts" that count, but their intent *as evidenced by the language chosen in the contract". So since Section 6 clearly indicates there must first be a distribution, that's their intent. No shortage of case law on that. Regards, Andreas
