Re: Draft new DFSG
Montreal Thu Nov 26 06:52:25 1998
Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > i understand that you dislike the patch clause, but will this not,
> > > now that Qt has adopted a "free" license upto the patch, again
> > > become non-free ? And would we not be critiqued for it ?
> Qt hasn't adopted a "free" license, yet. [Though they appear to be
> serious about probably adopting one.]
Yes, but nonetheless this anti-patch announcement comes 3 days after
the proposed Qt license.
> Because of the contradictory nature of this license, I don't expect
> anyone to ever use it as a license for any software or for anthing else.
Hmmm, the license contradicts itself? Where?