Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be hard to argue that the licence implies that the patch must be > under the QPL, because (a) copyright law in the jurisdictions I'm aware of > says nothing about reciprocity of terms of derived works, (b) section 4 > explicitly states when you must licence your modifications under the QPL, so > it's obvious they've thought about it, and (c) 3b says "When modifications > to the Software are released under this license", which strongly implies to > me that you have a choice as to whether or not to place your modifications > under the QPL (unless compelled by section 4).
I think you've read "under this license" as meaning that I license my modifications to others under the QPL. I read it rather differently: I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license which allows me to release them is the QPL, then I must make this grant. That is, it's not talking about the license under which my changes are available to you, but about the license under which I perform the act of releasing: "modifications to the software are released under this license" -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
