Re: QPL and non-free
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: QPL and non-free
- From: Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:58:59 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] E1EomhP-0005oX-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- In-reply-to: <87mziviq2r.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
- References: <87bqze9y04.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> <do925s$9fe$1@wonderland.linux.it> <87irtjhm0q.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> <200512201106.18203.wjl@icecavern.net> <200512201106.18203.wjl@icecavern.net> <87mziviq2r.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker writes:
>
>> Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] 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 | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: