Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which > > > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the > > > > strongest yet: > > > > > > > > (3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are > > > > sufficient to make the software free so there is no need to even look > > > > at section 6. > > > > > > No, since they apply to two different things. QPL 3 and 4 is for > > > modifications > > > of the original software, while QPL 6 is for applications linking with the > > > software. > > > > I'm surprised to see you dismiss so readily what is potentially your > > strongest argument, but perhaps it's a trick to make me argue your > > No, because i honestly believe that the QPL makes this modified work/linked > work distinction, so you can't use this case.
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software licence? If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions granted by section 3? If NO, how do you argue that the language of section 3 excludes the kind of derived work that is permitted by section 6?
