From kde-licensing Mon Jun 19 15:48:25 2000 From: "Darren O. Benham" Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:48:25 +0000 To: kde-licensing Subject: Re: Debian FUD and whining X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96142974805954 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX" --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:32:26PM -0500, mosfet wrote: > 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. Actually, in all the discussions *I've* had on the subject... Debian has insisted that no Third Party GPL'd code be used without the author's permission. At one point, I was going though the code to verify to the rest of the project that no such third party code existed (or in what parts they existed). I stopped only because it became virtually uncompilable for me (considering the amount of free time I had and the problems I had in trying and the lack of assistance I could find). --=20 Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian Team Linux Infrastructure Engineer * --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5TkDJbbwt//gBAIoRAfOpAJ4imXQDX2/djcQajqoB/alnPRSONgCdHPrs RzU1ZkWjWL3hF3CAmcaS97Q= =JQ36 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX--