On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated > license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance > and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after > suitable application of weasel words.
You may think that's logical, but you're wrong. Microsoft can't include GPL'd code in NT because GPL won't allow binary only releases. The GPL would be violated. Are you going to thus claim the GPL is more restrictive that MS's shrinkwrap licenses? > BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into > /usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl Try taking the chip off of your shoulder and looking up the definition of "common". Then try to count the number of packages with a GPL license vs. QPL. Steve
