On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:06:15 -0700 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
> >
> > > bahner@debian.org wrote:
> > >>I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
> > >
> > > Then you do not need to worry, because the QPL is a free license.
> >
> > Readers should beware that Marco holds this opinion in known
> > opposition to most other people on this list.
>
> Saying "most other people" is certainly an overstatement. I believe
> the license is free and complies with the DFSG,
I do not agree.
Software released solely under the QPL license (with no additional
permissions) does not comply with the DFSG, IMO.
This has already been discussed in the past.
> but it can be
> problematic when linked with software that has incompatible licenses.
That is an inconvenient, but it's not a freeness issue per se.
It's *not* the reason why it's non-free.
>
> Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a
> free license; but it's not GPL compatible.
>
> [1]
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
guidelines.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpjoctkqRHWy.pgp
Description: PGP signature