From kde-devel Tue Jun 13 06:17:31 2000 From: Waldo Bastian Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:17:31 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: The Licencing Issue X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=96087705123596 On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Talin wrote: > Here are some things that I hear often from KDE developers on this > issue: > > 1. "We don't need to change the license, therefore we won't change it." > 2. "Those Debian people are being unreasonable - they are fanatics and > their interpretation of the legal issues are wrong." > 3. "Those Debian people are in a conspiracy to keep KDE out of their > distribution." I would like to make some remarks about these issues. 1) Changing licenses is not something that can be done easily. KDE has been under a lot of fire for its disinterest in licensing issues, given that it is probably not a good idea to hastily change some licenses. 2&3) After having read quite some postings on this issue in the various groups dedicated to this I must conclude that there are very few people (on both sides) who seem to understand a) the full text of the GPL b) copright law c) both. I think it is a big problem that so little people (developers!) actually understand all the implications of the GPL. That is worrying because it are these same developers which license their work to others based on the GPL. It is my believe that the founders of KDE would not have chosen the GPL if they had truly been aware of all aspects of the GPL. Wrt to legal issues surrounding the GPL you can probably build flamefests a big as vi vs. emacs but I don't think that's of any use. More interesting is probably the question whether KDE is following the intentions of the GPL. In the case of KDE 1.x my answer would be probably not. In the case of KDE 2.x my answer would be mostly yes. Thanks to the great folks at TrollTech KDE 2.x can build on an excellent open source toolkit. I am well aware of the subtle differences between "open source" and "free software" but I would assume that such a breakthrough would be welcomed as very big step in the right direction. Instead I have seen a lot of bitching and moaning from a lot of Debian people, often either completely misinformed or based on preliminary drafts of the QPL. Then, after some time, people at Debian seem suddenly more interested in the legal fineprint of the GPL than its intentions and start to scream libelous and baseless accusations towards the KDE team. "illegal", "criminal", etc. etc. Such actions make it hard to have any trust in the Debian organisation and to believe it is actually interested in the interests of KDE and its users. As for KDE being included in Debian, to be honest, I can't care less. That said, I do care about KDE, its users and its developers and I would like to see KDE being accepted as both open source as well as free software. It's not fair for people honestly spending a lot of their spare time in making software available for everyone to be flamed to death over and over again by people who happen to disagree with the fineprint of a license. It's the responsibility of the KDE project as a whole to bring an end to that and to find a solution that is acceptable to all. I don't think that adding a clause to the GPL that explicitly allows linking with Qt is a very good solution because that basically just moves to a new generations of problems where people end up mixing GPL-with and GPL-without code which is bound to result in the same flamefests we already have seen too often. There are already enough different licenses out there and the GPL is already complicated enough lets not try to worsten that situation. Cheers, Waldo -- Make way, KDE/Linux is coming to a desktop near you! >> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<