[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG

Montreal Thu Nov 26 06:52:25 1998

Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> 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?


Reply to: