From kde-licensing Fri Jan 01 00:22:41 1999 From: Kevin Forge Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 00:22:41 +0000 To: kde-licensing Subject: Re: [knghtbrd@debian.org: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1] X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=91523871607591 Raul Miller wrote: > > Joseph Carter wrote: > > > Many are of the opinion the thing has to be licensed under the GPL > > > or able to be under the GPL for it to be compatible. I still see > > > no harm in this if it's otherwise licensed well. Andreas has some > > > inhibitions but I don't yet know what they are. > > Kevin Forge wrote: > > If this was true then Debian wold need to ditch 1/2 it's distribution > > ( perhaps more ). > > I'm not sure I understand why you think this. > > Remember that some significant programs are GPLed and have been modified > to use Qt (which is still only available under the old license), and > have been re-distributed. How is this circumstance relevant to half of > what debian distributes? > Raul Most of what debian distributes is GPL stuff linked to stuff licensed otherwise. If the Licensed had to _BE_ GPL or something that can be changed to GPL then they would be excluded. The Other interpretation is that the license of the stuff your GPLed work links to must allow distribution and modification of source. I am not quite sure what your view is. Neither dose it matter for this particular statement. Some people feel that mearly allowing the basic things the GPL demands is not enough. It is to those My quip was directed. They thing X and LGPL are GPL compliant because they allow you to change the license to GPL. I think that's dumb since only the copyright holder can change the license.