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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Debian FUD and whining
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-06-18 20:32:26
[Download RAW message or body]

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

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