Jonathan P Tomer writes: > it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially > qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one.
It's not GPL compatible in that it adds additional restrictions. > such is the nature of the infective copyleft. Such is the nature of paragraph 6 of the GPL: ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ... > however it -does- seem dfsg-free to me I hadn't noticed than anyone was saying that it wasn't. > ...you can relicense a piece of code that once had a bsd/x license, > without even being the original author,.. You cannot "relicense" a work of which you are not the author. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
