"Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote... > > > contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files. > > The QPL contains clause 6c which states: > > > > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other > > software items that link with the original or modified versions of the > > Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following > > requirements: > > > > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > > then you must supply one. > > > > This would seem to fail the Chinese Dissident Test. > > As has been the topic of countless discussions in this forum, the > QPL itself is a free licence. It is incompatible with the GPL tough.
I think Barak's point is: should we revisit that decision? (Note that the cost is pretty minor at this point; very few things depend on the QPL any more.) Or, is there something wrong with the Chinese Dissident test, as we've previously described it?