Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:29:36PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> suitable application of weasel words. From the vast (or is it half-vast?)
> amount of discussion on this point, I'm guessing that the GPL is the
> violated one, so thus is the more restrictive in that circumstance. I'm
Guessing indicates you don't know what you're talking about. If you had
actually read any part of the discussions on this subject, there would
be no need to guess that the GPL is the license being violated.
> going to go out on the limb and be a Devil's Advocate here: since two
> alleged "open source" licenses meet and the result is undistributable,
> would it not be logical to think of the offending license as the non-free?
No, they are just incompatible. It doesn't mean they are non-free.
> 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
What does "free enough" have to do with _COMMON_ licenses? If you have
a package that uses the QPL (like libqt2 or OCaml) it comes with the
license. It's just not common enough to put in /usr/share/common-licenses.
BTW, this little flame earned you the following spot in my .procmailrc
:0
* ^From:.*galt@inconnu.isu.edu*
/dev/null
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Finger dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu for more information.
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
-- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU
Reply to: