Re: QPL and non-free
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: QPL and non-free
- From: Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:58:59 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] E1EomhP-0005oXemail@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Michael Poole <email@example.com> wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker writes:
>> Readers should also note that the FSF believes 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 | firstname.lastname@example.org