[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From: Steve Hutton <shutton () mediaone ! net>
Date: 2000-06-20 2:11:22
[Download RAW message or body]
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> Why don't you substantiate that DEBIAN's problem (and not YOUR problem) \
> is with "the number of KDE proponents who have said...".
It's certainly comforting to know that official Debian policy is not openly
based on the amount of noise opposing advocates make.
> The only official
> Debian statement that I can find is the original one that Debian made \
> when the decision to not ship KDE was made
> (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1998-10-08-002-10-OP)
It's interesting to go back and read this document now:
Potential Solutions:
--------------------
[...]
2) KDE losing its dependence upon non-free software.
There are a few scenarios that could lead to this, the \
most promising one being
the Harmony[7] project (an attempt to implement a GPLed \
replacement for Qt).
If any of these come to pass, then KDE binaries built \
without any dependence
upon non-free code should be possible, and would then be \
included as part of the main Debian GNU/Linux distribution.
Since QT 2.x under the QPL is agreed to be "free software" by all parties, \
it appears that the proposed solution that was labeled:
"KDE losing its dependence upon non-free software. "
has now been changed to:
"KDE losing its dependence upon any software whose license is interpreted \
as more restrictive than the GPL by RMS"
Steve
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic