Le mardi 26 juin 2007 à 00:48 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you > > don't apply section #6 > > This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the QPL > does *not* comply with the DFSG. No. Section #6 only applies to components "that link with the original or modified versions of the Software". It doesn't apply to derived works. > When discussing whether a license meets the DFSG, "patched" versions of > the license cannot help the "unpatched" original license to meet the > DFSG... I'm not talking about a hypothetical "patched" license, and you should consider reading what people write before replying on a mailing list. > And anyway, you there's not only clause 6c: another issue that makes the > QPL fail to meet the DFSG is the choice of venue. There is no choice of venue, only choice of law. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=