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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From:       Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP () dfo-mpo ! gc ! ca>
Date:       2000-06-20 14:30:59
[Download RAW message or body]


Implicit permission to link against an incompatible library
wasn't assumed for XForms-based GPL applications so Debian is not
treating KDE code differently than other cases.  Three GPL'ed
XForms-based applications were removed from potato and woody for
a similar reason (GPL incompatible with XForms) even though the
applications were written for XForms (and not ported to it).

The removed packages are xfmix, xmysql and xldlas

http://www.uk.debian.org/Bugs/db/39/39521.html
http://www.uk.debian.org/Bugs/db/39/39522.html
http://www.uk.debian.org/Bugs/db/39/39524.html

-- 
Peter Galbraith, research scientist          <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
    6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/ 


Joseph Carter wrote:

> For the wholly KDE-written components, implicit permission seems to be
> enough.  The problems -legal came up with are 3rd party code in KDE and
> that accepting implicit permission would look like we were agreeing no
> permission is necessary (or possibly worse, actually accepting the license
> with no permission implicit or otherwise since the claim that no
> permission is necessary and therefore will not be provided could be
> inferred to be a denial of the implicit permission as well..)
> 
> In short, Debian's DEVELOPERS came to the conclusion that implicit
> permission won't work for us and that 3rd party code is a problem.

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