Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> What? That doesn't follow at all. Even ignoring that, you're still
> wrong. You have no guarantee that upstream hasn't done something that is
> assumed to breach the GPL, such as depending on a BSDed library that
> happens to link against OpenSSL. If the code had been under the BSD
> license, the number of possible conflicts you have to check would have
> been smaller and thus easier.
But it's as easy to blame that on the OpenSSL license as on the GPL.
I don't think you can look at nonlocal problems as an indication of
any given license being non-free; just as a reason not to increase
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org