Re: Recently released QPL
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially
> qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one.
It's not GPL compatible in that it adds additional restrictions.
> such is the nature of the infective copyleft.
Such is the nature of paragraph 6 of the GPL:
...
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein.
...
> however it -does- seem dfsg-free to me
I hadn't noticed than anyone was saying that it wasn't.
> ...you can relicense a piece of code that once had a bsd/x license,
> without even being the original author,..
You cannot "relicense" a work of which you are not the author.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Reply to: