Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
> license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
> and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
> suitable application of weasel words.
You may think that's logical, but you're wrong. Microsoft can't include
GPL'd code in NT because GPL won't allow binary only releases. The
GPL would be violated. Are you going to thus claim the GPL is more
restrictive that MS's shrinkwrap licenses?
> BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into
> /usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl
Try taking the chip off of your shoulder and looking up the definition
of "common". Then try to count the number of packages with a GPL
license vs. QPL.
Steve
Reply to: