Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, > > > > Not so great. > > > > > but consensus about it has been much more dubious, > > > > I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html > > I'm not convinced that QPL 3 makes it non-free. Of course I don't like > QPL 3, so don't expect me to spend much time arguing for it, but I > have mentioned it a few times. For example: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01315.html > > I don't see a clear qualitative distinction between the licensing > required by QPL 3 and the licensing required by the GPL, for example, > that makes one a "fee" but not the other.
I would argue that the fee required by the GPL has been grandfathered in by DFSG #10. That is why so many people argue about whether the GPL is really free. The fee required by QPL 3b is a whole different animal. It is a much more generous grant that only goes to the original developer. That sort of far reaching fee has no precedent in Debian. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
