Josh Triplett writes: >> >> The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces >> people to break the law"? > >That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm >definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails. >Thank you both.
*sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code without fee, would you consider the GPL to be non-free at that point? If the US is backward enough to attempt to restrict exports of software to certain states, that's NOT a problem in the licenses so affected. Or are we trying to make a US-centric set of DFSG now? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone
