From kde-licensing Sun Jun 18 20:32:26 2000 From: mosfet Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:32:26 +0000 To: kde-licensing Subject: Re: Debian FUD and whining X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96136029918237 Steve Hutton wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > Fact is, kghostview and every other case like it is pretty much the whole > > reason KDE was removed from Debian. Without an explicit exception, we > > can't tell what KDE has permission to use and what they don't. But that > > doesn't matter to him because Debian never makes this argument he says, > > despite the fact that it _IS_ our argument. > > This ignores the "intent" principle that mosfet brought up. Assuming you think > the GPL and QPL are incompatible, the intent principle would make the explicit > clause not needed for KDE software that is *not* derived from GPL'd code that > wasn't linked with QT. > > So, if you accept the intent prinicple as valid, and you believe the QPL and GPL > are incompatible, you would want to exclude only those programs that are derived > from GPL'd code that was not linked to QT. > Actually Joe's backtracking quite a bit here and I feel being misleading. Debian has always insisted that *no* KDE code can use an unmodified GPL, even stuff we totally wrote ourselves. It's not so they can "tell what KDE has permission to use and what they don't" - they have argued strongly (but incorrectly) that *all* KDE code needs a license change in order to be legal. > Steve -- Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin. http://www.mosfet.org - The place for KDE development news. mosfet@mandrakesoft.com mosfet@kde.org