I don't mean to be a pain, but I think there's a disconnect about what all is unclear. It's pretty clear that you guys want playable content, and you don't want people to re-implement older rule systems.
What isn't clear is if we can publish a Gloranthan scenario that uses the QuestWorlds rules instead of the ones in HeroQuest Glorantha, where those rulesets differ. I think the big difference comes with Extended Contests. HeroQuest: Glorantha has a single set of rules for them, but QuestWorlds has a few different options for Sequences. I've run both systems and found those all play pretty differently. There's some other mechanical differences here and there, but I don't think any of them matter so much.
That's a difference that'll come up even if you're only publishing a scenario, with absolutely no new rules in it at all. And I don't think it's a time-wasting niggle, because that's pretty fundamental to writing a scenario. You have to know which rules you're using! If I'm publishing a scenario, can I use either Extended Contests or Sequences?
Or for a really concrete example: Right now, I am running a QuestWorlds game set in Umathela. I'm big on planning (and forcing my players to read essays about historical agriculture; they're very tolerant) so I have a lot of stuff I could theoretically publish. (Layout is hard.)
Publishing the setting stuff is clearly fine, and so are the scenarios. But, unlike HeroQuest: Glorantha, QuestWorlds doesn't have any baked-in support for making magic and whatnot distinct from other keywords. And that stuff isn't necessary, you can treat it all like normal abilities, but I did add some things:
-An "Initiation" character creation method, which is basically Prose for an immature character, then playing an initiation scenario and swapping a few abilities as we go.
-Magical abilities as a distinct category, but using myths as the keywords instead of cults. That is to say, I have a player with a score in How Orlanth Conquered Yelm, not a score in Storm Rune (Orlanth).
Those rules aren't replicating any older editions. If you're working from QuestWorlds, they're not replacing anything. They're additive, to support the the specific setting and scenarios in it, which seems OK according to the FAQ. If we're working HeroQuest: Glorantha, that amounts to rewriting the magic rules, so it's probably not kosher. If I wanted to publish my Umathela scenarios and setting handouts, could I include those?
I know that's a lot of text and I really appreciate your time on this. I'm clearly a partisan for QuestWorlds on this; I think it's a much better system than HeroQuest. I'm just not clear if you knew how much the rules differences between the two systems matter if you're writing a playable scenario. You're welcome to restrict the Jonstown Compendium to HeroQuest: Glorantha's rules, but you should probably purge references to the QuestWorlds SRD from the content guidelines in in that case. It's profoundly misleading in ways that are very important.
As I type this, I realize this is all probably temporary if you intend to republish a version of QuestWorlds: Glorantha that does have the same rules as the SRD in it. Which may be the entire disconnect? I obviously don't know your plans there, but it seemed like a plausible cause of confusion.