* docs(license): state that free public hosting still needs a commercial license (MUL-5558)

Condition 1a's operative sentence restricts providing a hosted service to
third parties without qualifying it by commerciality, but clause 1's
preamble frames the whole section around commercial use, so a reader can
argue that a free public instance escapes (a). A downstream fork asked
exactly this question, which is evidence enough that the ambiguity is real.

Say it directly: hosting for third parties is restricted whether or not a
fee is charged. Free hosting is the substitution risk the condition exists
to price, so leaving it to inference is the wrong default.

Also state the other half explicitly: publishing a fork's source is not a
hosted service and needs no commercial license, but it conveys no hosting
right downstream — each operator needs its own.

This ports the net content of commit ae73ad1e3 (stranded on the merged
PR #6197 branch, whose LICENSE predates #6206) onto the current Multica
License structure.

Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>

* docs(license): drop the relicensing implication from the source-distribution bullet (MUL-5558)

Review found two defects in the fork-distribution bullet:

- "publishing a fork under an open-source license" could be read as
  permitting the fork to be relicensed as a whole. An OSD-compliant
  license cannot carry the hosting restriction, so that reading would
  contradict condition 3(d)'s requirement to deliver the complete
  Multica License on redistribution. Describe the act (publishing the
  fork's source) instead of a licensing regime.
- "remains subject to conditions (b) and (c)" enumerates too narrowly,
  implying Part II and condition 3 do not apply. Say "all applicable
  terms of this Multica License" with an illustrative reference instead.

Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>

---------

Co-authored-by: Bohan-J <bohan@devv.ai>
Co-authored-by: multica-agent <github@multica.ai>