From kde-licensing Tue Jun 20 15:15:44 2000 From: Peter S Galbraith Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:15:44 +0000 To: kde-licensing Subject: Re: RMS,Debian and KDE X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96151418330461 Steve Hutton wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > 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). > > Ah, so it is Debian's policy to exclude packages that even RMS > would say are legal to distribute. I find RMS' position interesting, but it would be fair to conclude that Debian requires explicit permission. > > 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 > > Has anyone considered waging a campaign to force either > the authors of these packages or the authors of XForms to > change their license? I'm sure the authors of these packages have been informed about the problem and have been asked to consider changing their license. Other packages in the same situation have changed licenses and remained in Debian. Why is it so hard for you to accept that we are being consistent? > A good place to start might be a prominantly placed editorial > on freshmeat or slashdot. If enough anger could be drummed > up against them, surely they would eventually cave in. > > Steve You may choose to believe that some Debian developers are persecuting KDE. I have presented evidence that we are not singling out KDE on this issue. Flame wars that spill over to freshmeat or slashdot are a different issue. Peter