Sven Luther wrote: > I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL > is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution > to it when time permits, and upstream has also agreed to it in > principle, so this should be solved before the now imminent (whatever > this means for debian release cycle :) sarge release. > > Anyway, it would rightly surprise me if the QPL would be reveled > non-free after all this years of use and the KDE controversy it was > linked to, and i believe that we have more than just ocaml as QPLed > programs in debian. So i request the help of debian-legal to help me > clarify this thing, and either make an official statement that the QPL > is non-free, or shut Brian up, and let me back to work on my packages. debian-legal is currently analyzing the QPL, and working on a license summary. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html for the DRAFT summary, and feel free to offer your comments, suggestions, or statements of whether the draft represents your position. The consensus seems to be that the license is non-free, and the only thing left is to work out the full details of the summary. I am currently writing the second draft, based on the responses to the first. It would certainly be reasonable to wait until the summary is completed before acting on this bug. Also, to the best of my knowledge, programs under only the QPL are rare in Debian. (Incidentally, a quick grep through /usr/share/doc/*/copyright on my system to check that statement turned up mdetect, which appears to be mixing QPLed and GPLed code in the same program.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature