Re: libcwd in Debian unstable
"Paul Wise" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Carlo Wood <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Author, copyright holder, maintainer, tired of this, and all what not,
> Do you mind if I ask why you chose the QPL instead of a DFSG-free licence?
According to the FSF, the Q Public License version 1.0 is a free
Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0
This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.
Debian's wiki, on the DFSGLicense page, categorises QPLv1 in the
The QPL is not GPL-compatible, which, regardless of one's opinion
about the license's DFSG-freeness, poses a major practical problem
for any code licensed under the QPL that is reused elsewhere in
conjunction with code under the GNU GPL. This makes the QPL alone
a particularly poor choice of license for a library.
All that aside, though, if Carlo Wood is "tired of all this", he would
be best advised to choose to license his work under terms whose
freedom status *is* settled.
\ "I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny." |
`\ -- Steven Wright |