Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-21 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness guidelines. But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wesley J. Landaker writes: Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free license; but it's not GPL compatible. This does not mean a lot. They believe the same thing of the GNU FDL, but the FDL is non-DFSG-free in the

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness guidelines. But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness guidelines. But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.