Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 
> If you're arguing from the perspective of GPL compatibility, that's
> not really where I'm coming from.  The GPL is IMO confusing and not
> very well worded and I'm mostly interested in seeing a license that
> doesn't have these problems.  A good, solid open source license that
> is easy to understand and use would be a great boon to the community,
> and I think the QPL could be just that if it doesn't contain ambiguity
> or other unresolved issues.

Actually Troll would have stopped with QPL-0.91 if GPL compatibility 
didn't matter.  A solid open source license is a simple thing to 
write.  Just read the Artistic license if you want one.  0.90
had a bug that allowed a proprietary fork.  something that Troll
Tech would not want :).