Re: Recently released QPL
Joseph Carter <email@example.com> wrote:
> In the letter RMS told me that even if the terms of the GPL and the QPL
> were identical for all practical purposes, the QPL is not the GPL and as
> a result the QPL may only be compatible with the GPL if it allows the
> work to be sublicensed under the GPL, as is the case for LGPL works.
Hmm... I think this has an element of truth to it (close isn't always
the same as an exact match), but I'd really be happier if you could
quote the text of the letter.