On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:18:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > I'm quite sure that somehow this will prevent us from using it without
> > worrying about license issues again.
>
> It simply means we cannot reuse existing GPLed code (without getting the
> authors to offer it under a QPL-compatible license as well). For code
> written by Debian developers to be added to Lizard, it's probably best to
> use a dual license scheme ("at your option, GPL2 (or newer) or QPL"), or
> perhaps LGPL or BSD if they're QPL-compatible. Perhaps someone on -legal can
> comment on this?
The QPL is not compatible with the GPL. Just about anything else (BSD,
LGPL, Artistic, X) is perfectly acceptable in terms of license
compatibility.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<stu> apt: !bugs
<apt> !bugs are stupid
<dpkg> apt: are stupid? what's that?
<apt> dpkg: i don't know
<dpkg> apt: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...
<apt> i already had it that way, dpkg.
Attachment:
pgpOehAfaQf0S.pgp
Description: PGP signature