Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On 2004-07-12 10:48:57 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
As I mentioned on IRC, we shipped QT in main under the QPL before the
GPL was added. I don't think the above is a terribly convincing
argument. [...]
Given the apparent lack of comment either way, it seems null as data.
1) The FSF list the QPL as a free software license, despite it being
in
violation of "You should also have the freedom to make modifications
and
use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be
required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way."
(from www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) - I guess this is an
RFC-style "should". The word "must" is used elsewhere on the page,
which
tends to support that.
I'm puzzled by this, given what was said about APSL 1, but I've
expressed my problems asking licensing@gnu questions elsewhere. Can
someone else ask them about this apparent confusion in that page,
please? Failing that, I will, but expect a reply just before the next
ice age.
[...]
It's worth remembering that using QT under the GPL is only possible
with
GPL compatible code. There is certainly non-GPL compatible code that
uses QT under the QPL. I have no idea if we ship any of it.
Licence combinations are often missed. It would be interesting to know
if they exist in this case.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
Reply to: