Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that
>> we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what
>> aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much
>> the same end result.
> Why do you think it is supposed to lead to nearly the same end result?
Because that's the impression I get from reading the discussion that led
to them being written.
>> The GFDL is a red herring. The FSF don't try to claim it's a free
>> software license.
> The FSF distinguishes between software and documentation, and Debian
> refuses to. This makes the FSF's freeness claims about the GFDL
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
>> Diversity of opinions hurts the members of the community who find that a
>> license they thought was free isn't by our standards. I'm not sure who
>> it actually benefits.
> Members of the community will have that problem anyway, since
> different people have both different values and different
> interpretations of fact. Examples include the Apache 2 license GPL
> compatibility question, the OpenSSL GPL incompatibility, the
> distinction between "free software" and OSI's "open source"
> definition, and so fourt.
None of these cases involve two different definitions of an existing
term. If we say "The QPL is not a free software license" while the FSF
are saying "The QPL is a (poor quality) free software license", how is
that not going to result in unhappiness?
The Apache foundation don't claim that you should treat their license as
GPL compatible. See
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com