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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL



MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-11 10:59:22 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@vsnl.net> wrote:
>> it cannot be
>> in main,  will some situation  arise where application X,  also solely
>> under QPL can be in main?
> 
> No, but it would be possible that QPL-like +extras could be. Having a
> checklist QPL=>non-free decision isn't as helpful as we could be. Worked
> examples are a far better explanation.

This is the reason why in my summary I used the phrasing "software
licensed solely under this license is not Free Software".  Any arbitrary
license can be made free or non-free given sufficient
changes/clarifications/extras.  However, I think that any arbitrary
program under _only_ the _unmodified_ QPL cannot possibly be Free Software.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: