Re: QPL (was Re: C++ ... )

To: taggart@carmen.fc.hp.com (Matt Taggart)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), gduval@mandrakesoft.com (Gael Duval), lsb-futures@freestandards.org, gorlando@futuretg.com (Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando), debian-devel@lists.debian.org, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: QPL (was Re: C++ ... )
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:21:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-id: <[🔎] E16zxQ4-0008JW-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20020423095225.8E23A39142@carmen.fc.hp.com> from "Matt Taggart" at Apr 23, 2002 03:52:25 AM

> So does this violate the "no-strings-attached" rule? Unlike the GPL it
> _is_ possible to create propriatary versions but at a cost. Where do we
> draw the line?

I think it crosses the line

Second question - suppose troll feel their ABI is stable and want to
create something outside of the LSB proper but in conjunction with it ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

References:
- QPL (was Re: C++ ... )
  - From: Matt Taggart <taggart@carmen.fc.hp.com>

Prev by Date: Bug#144190: ITP: wmmemload -- A dockapp to monitor memory/swap usages
Next by Date: Re: Writing bugs about OpenOffice.org
Previous by thread: QPL (was Re: C++ ... )
Next by thread: Re: QPL (was Re: C++ ... )
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread