[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


"Oliver M. Bolzer" <oliver@gol.com> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter <bap@cs.unm.edu> wrote...
> > contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
> > The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
> > 
> >     6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> >     software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> >     Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
> >     requirements:
> > 
> > 	  c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > 	  initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > 	  then you must supply one.
> > 
> > This would seem to fail the Chinese Dissident Test.
> As has been the topic of countless discussions in this forum, the 
> QPL itself is a free licence. It is incompatible with the GPL tough.

I think Barak's point is: should we revisit that decision?  (Note that
the cost is pretty minor at this point; very few things depend on the
QPL any more.)  Or, is there something wrong with the Chinese
Dissident test, as we've previously described it?

Reply to: