On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:29:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > grep -rl "THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE" */copyright > > > cervisia/copyright > This is QPL-only, and a bug should likely be filed. :sigh: > (This is the real QPL, with Norway and Oslo.) > [snip] > These are mostly GPL-only, in fact. (With a few LGPL, BSD, etc.) > The confusion is due to the fact that all of the above and cervisia share a > single source package and copyright file. > > > libqt3c102-mt/copyright [snip] > These are all dual QPL-GPL. > > > ocaml/copyright > The "compiler" is QPL-only. This is another modified QPL, governed by > French law and with venue in Versailles. ICK. > > So out of that list, there are two QPL-only programs. Mr. Nerode: Could I goad you into doing a proper impact analysis of the "pure QPL" by analyzing all the debian/copyright files in Debian main? This isn't *quite* as bad as it sounds, as any copright file that doesn't successfully case-insensitive match "QPL" or "\<Q\>.*\<PUBLIC\>.*\<LICENSE\> can be automatically ruled out. (I do presume that package maintainers maintain their debian/copyright files responsibly. Is this a crazy assumption? Do package maintainers who don't do so deserve any credibility on this mailing list?) -- G. Branden Robinson | I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data branden@debian.org | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature