On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:07:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being > >non-free. > > I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move > things forward. ;-) In any case, it doesn't matter at this point what > the numbers are. If their argument explains why a QPL-covered work > follows DFSG and that isn't affected by the discussed problems, I hope > most of us are humble enough to correct ourselves.
If I saw an argument which cleared up all of the concerns I had, I'd be more than happy to acquiesce. I've already had my mind changed several times by persuasive discussion in this thread, but there are still several problems to worry about. - Matt
