On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 08:06:35AM -0600, David Starner wrote: > This is unfair. For better or worse, the QPL is an open source > license, and RMS and Debian believe it to be a free license. Indeed. QPL 2.0 could have been GPL compatible, thanks in part to a lot of work Joseph Carter put into it. But, according to Joseph, there's a couple non-essential clauses in it which, if rephrased, would allow make them compatible. It's a bloody shame is what it is. -- Raul