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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [knghtbrd@debian.org: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1]
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1999-01-01 0:22:41
[Download RAW message or body]

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 <forgeltd@usa.net> 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.

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