> It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the > same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the > upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like > Trolltech did.
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no "competition" from projects building up on years of his work. I can completely understand this line of reasoning, and I find it hard to argue against that. If you have convincing arguments, share them with me (or just post them here, I sent the thread link to the author). You and I, we agree that the QPL should go away and be replaced by a truly free licence. However, unless we find a licence that accomodates DFSG-freeness and the author's wish for legal protection against forks, it's going to be hard. I have proposed to him to consider creating a license of his own, which would basically allow everything except the incoporation of the code into another project with the same goals as libcwd. We'll see what comes. In the mean time, I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks for any forthcoming (and previous) suggestions and thoughts! -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
