Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
- To: Adi Stav <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Ben Pfaff <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
- From: email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 01 Mar 2000 15:53:06 -0500
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Adi Stav's message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:47:43 +0200"
- References: <20000220031540.A766@actcom.co.il> <20000219235700.A9425@usatoday.com> <20000221024515.B375@actcom.co.il> <20000220200410.A17206@usatoday.com> <20000221053447.D375@actcom.co.il> <email@example.com> <20000221054743.F375@actcom.co.il>
Adi Stav <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> My bad. I meant "approved the QPL as a Free license", which they have.
Yes, but that's a question of fact, not of whether the FSF like it.
It *is* a free software license. It has problems, but that's not the