On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 03:12:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:07:27PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > > QPLed code can't be distributed under the GPL. Code which is linked
> > > into the program is part of the program. What part of that don't you
> > > understand?
> >
> > I can't see how it would allow Troll to re-release GPL code under the
> > QPL, or (more to the point, as I've agreed that the QPL should not
> > considered a Free license) how anyone could re-release GPL code under
> > a different Free license other than the GPL.
>
> Ok, so you've agreed that QPL should not be considered a free license.
Generally speaking, yes, because of the code-reuse problem. But since
the FSF is known for its uncompromising attitude towards Free Software
I was wondering/hoping that maybe there was something we overlooked.
> Wouldn't you then say that if QPLed code is incorporated into a GPLed
> program that that part of the GPLed program would not be free?
Yes, given that there isn't something we overlooked.
> > Anyhow, if you consider any Free license a "good enough" license than
> > additions or mofifications to your code under such a license are also
> > ok.
> >
>
> But if the QPL is not a Free license, why should it be considered
> "good enough"?
>
> Not sure I'm understanding your point...
I meant the general case, i.e. other GPL-incompatible Free licenses,
or (more to the point) the QPL if we are wrong and it is Free.
> --
> Raul
>
- Adi Stav
