Re: Qt and the GPL

[Paul Crowley]

David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Considering a GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough.

Eh?  Who would not have been satisfied with a genuinely GPL-compatible 
QPL?
-- 
  __
\/ o\ Employ me! Cryptology, security, Perl, Linux, TCP/IP, and smarts.
/\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/paul/cv/

Re: Essay RFC delayed.

[Paul Crowley]

"Derek J. Balling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 I'm not a contributor myself to GNOME, but I suspect that many of
 the contributors are from the "wanting software which doesn't suck"
 category more than they are the "It's freedom baby!  Yeah!" camp.

Please try and characterise the beliefs you're discussing fairly and
evenly, even where you disagree: I'm sure you'd find irksome an
article that constrasted the "wanting software that doesn't take away
freedom" category with the "it works better, so who cares?" camp.
-- 
  __
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley  http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\

Re: RFC soon on essay Does Free Software Production in a Bazaar obey the Law of Diminishing Returns?

[Paul Crowley]

Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Actually there is just a small difference between the set of licenses
 that are defined as open source and the set that we define as free
 software.  There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
 the Apple license.

APSL 1.0, APSL 1.1, or both?
-- 
  __
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley  http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\