[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    Re: KDE2 license policy
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-08-03 22:40:37
[Download RAW message or body]

Patrick O Neil wrote:
> 
> OK, I can see where they might have some pull against the official KDE
> org and I see no point in creating useless animosity between the two
> groups that SHOULD be working together, to some extent, for the sake
> of interoperability (like...how about bringing bonobo into kde?), but...
> 
> I can't see where they would have a leg if somebody made their
> own Kimp or Qtimp and released it themselves, outside and apart from
> kde.org and the related, official sites.  I would still encourage
> one to give proper attribute but, hey, make it as an individual hacker,
> also providing the source, of course.
> 
> If I had the skills, I would do it myself and release it myself without
> any connection to the kde.org structure(s).  I would do it so that same
> tool can be obtained to work properly with whichever environment one
> chooses to use.  I don't give a whit for anyone's personal opinion about
> this license or that license vis a vis the gnu/opensource philosophy and
> individual interpretations thereof.  I care about interfunctionality and
> usefulness, nice objective measures.

You don't seem to understand - they will not allow the port period.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pour
> To: KDE general mailing list
> Sent: 8/3/00 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: KDE2 license policy
> 
> Patrick O Neil wrote:
> >
> > Where could one find "Kimp"?  I would certainly be interested in a
> > qt frontend to gimp instead of what it has.  I do not see why this
> > should be any problem in any case.  As far as I understand, opensource
> > doesn't object to this.  How about calling it Qtimp?
> 
> The "Kimp" is dead :-(.  As legend has it, Matthias Ettrich hacked a
> super interface onto the Gimp, but was told in no uncertain terms by the
> Gimp folks that they disapproved of linking to Qt (that was back in the
> pre-QPL days, so it's not clear if they would still object to linking to
> Qt-2*).
> 
> Even though one could do it anyway under the argument that it's legal, I
> think the "respect" is where you don't use someone else's code if they
> ask you not to b/c they believe it violates their license.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Andreas
> --
> Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
>  Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
>   Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
>    "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
> PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE
> POSTING
> **********************************************************************
> This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>
> --
> 
> Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
> 
>  Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
> 
>   Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
> 
>    "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
> 
> PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
> 
> **********************************************************************
> This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>
-- 
Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
 Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
  Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
   "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
**********************************************************************
This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]