On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:06:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL > > is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution > > to it when time permits, and upstream has also agreed to it in > > principle, so this should be solved before the now imminent (whatever > > this means for debian release cycle :) sarge release. > > > > Anyway, it would rightly surprise me if the QPL would be reveled > > non-free after all this years of use and the KDE controversy it was > > linked to, and i believe that we have more than just ocaml as QPLed > > programs in debian. So i request the help of debian-legal to help me > > clarify this thing, and either make an official statement that the QPL > > is non-free, or shut Brian up, and let me back to work on my packages. > > debian-legal is currently analyzing the QPL, and working on a license > summary. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html > for the DRAFT summary, and feel free to offer your comments, > suggestions, or statements of whether the draft represents your > position. The consensus seems to be that the license is non-free, and > the only thing left is to work out the full details of the summary. I > am currently writing the second draft, based on the responses to the first.
Yes, that is what i have seen, and seriously, what i have seen is barely reasonable, but i know i will again get flamed for this. Especially the way Overfiend and co have treatened me in the past. The desert island and chinese disident tests seem questionable to me, and i have voiced that in a previous mail, but should probably respond to the draft directly. > It would certainly be reasonable to wait until the summary is completed > before acting on this bug. Yeah, and i fear that a solution to this will happen days before the sarge release, and i asked to take actions, and remove it, while i have no choice to search for another solution. > Also, to the best of my knowledge, programs under only the QPL are rare > in Debian. So, what is the problem with that ? Friendly, Sven Luther
