"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Author, copyright holder, maintainer, tired of this, and all what not,
>
> Do you mind if I ask why you chose the QPL instead of a DFSG-free licence?
According to the FSF, the Q Public License version 1.0 is a free
software license:
Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0
This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.
<URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/>
Debian's wiki, on the DFSGLicense page, categorises QPLv1 in the
"unsettled" section:
The QPL is not GPL-compatible, which, regardless of one's opinion
about the license's DFSG-freeness, poses a major practical problem
for any code licensed under the QPL that is reused elsewhere in
conjunction with code under the GNU GPL. This makes the QPL alone
a particularly poor choice of license for a library.
<URL:http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-32008704067079bbbb028804a5dc10bb340d4086>
All that aside, though, if Carlo Wood is "tired of all this", he would
be best advised to choose to license his work under terms whose
freedom status *is* settled.
--
\ "I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny." |
`\ -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
