Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker writes:
>> Readers should also note that the FSF believes that the QPL is a free
>> license; but it's not GPL compatible.
> This does not mean a lot. They believe the same thing of the GNU FDL,
> but the FDL is non-DFSG-free in the general case.
I don't think the FSF have ever claimed that the GFDL would class as a
free software license. Their standards for free documentation licenses
are clearly different to the DFSG.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com