[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:       2000-06-21 13:54:35
[Download RAW message or body]


Steve Hutton wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Steve Hutton wrote:
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> So far so good.

Great.
 
> > Why is it so hard for you to accept that we are being consistent?
> 
> This rule about when to exclude packages from Debian seems to be
> applied consistantly.  However, the lack of LGPL'd KDE code in
> Debian seems to indicate there is more to the issue than rules about
> licensing.

<begin wild-guesses>
Perhaps some developers don't see a point of having packages in
Debian that do nothing on their own.  It's the beginning of a
packaging nightmare.  Every package in Debian has to be
consistent and can't depend on external packages.  Where would
compatible Debian packages come from?  Who decides what version
to track?  

Perhaps some other developers don't want to touch KDE packaging
until the crux of the licensing issue is resolved.  Maybe they
don't want to give the impression that everything is okay.  I
don't know.

It's likely that most Debian developers don't use KDE because
of the licensing issue, and since they don't use it that removes
most of the incentive to packaging it.
<end wild-guesses>

But there is no rule against packaging LGPL'd KDE code.  As they
say: `Show me the code' (Or `don't complain unless you are
willing to do it yourself'). So apply to become a maintainer and
package them yourself.  You use KDE, you know it well.  Then by
all means join Debian and package bits you can.  That would
really show Debian right?  Subvert from within!  If Debian turns
down your application, you'll have a great slashdot article about
conspiracy theories.
 
> > > 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.
> 
> I wasn't alluding to flamewars that spill over - but rather editorials
> like the one Joseph Carter published to freshmeat. 

It takes two to tango.  I'm sure Joseph Carter felt he was
provoked enough.

>                                                     I haven't seen
> a similar public opinion campaign against xforms.

XForms never really took off because it is closed-source.  It
existed before a lot of other toolkits and could have taken over
the world (as much as a toolkit can anyway).  I think it didn't
because it is closed-sourced and few people coded for it.  It's
possible that no one is mounting a public opinion campaign
against XForms licensing because no one cares about it enough.  I
maintain 4 XForms-based packages for Debian, so I cared enough to
discuss licensing issues with the upstream author.  As it turns
out he has plans to have a free license for XForms version 1 this
summer.  I hope it happens, and I hope he makes it GPL compatible
to avoid the kind of mess KDE has for other applications that
happen to be GPLed.

In any case, people don't have a problem with Qt licensing, but
rather with KDE's licensing.  KDE is to Qt like what is to XForms?
The only really important piece of code linked to XForms that
people care about is Lyx.  Lyx is under the GPL plus a permission
to link to XForms.  Everyone is happy.  There's nothing to
debate.  Nothing to mount a public opinion campaign over.

Peter

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