Re: License question about regexplorer
Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
> is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
> summer, IIRC).
There's disagreement over that.
> Based on what has been stated and on
> Regexplorer seems to not comply with the DFSG.
There's a moderate number of QPLed packages in the archive.
> I think a bug should be filed immediately...
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com