Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-21 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as >> freeness guidelines. > But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what > free softwar

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness >> guidelines. > > But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free > software (a term initially defined by t

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness > guidelines. But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the F

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wesley J. Landaker writes: > >> Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free >> license; but it's not GPL compatible. > > This does not mean a lot. They believe the same thing of the GNU FDL, > but the FDL is non-DFSG-free i