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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-06-21 14:40:39
[Download RAW message or body]

Steve Hutton wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> All kdelibs are LGPL'd.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> There is no licensing issue with kdelibs, since they are LGPL'd.
> Debian users could happily use those libs to create applications
> which they could license in a way that would satisfy Debian.
> 
> > 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!
> 
> Personally, seeing Debian ship KDE is not one of my goals.  Since
> what you describe is indeed possible for any Debian developer, I
> conclude that shipping KDE is not Debian's goal either.
> 
> I think Debian's goal is to get all KDE developers to change the license on
> their code.  Since I don't think this is a particularly realistic goal to
> begin with, and I don't think public attacks help any, I would be shocked
> if this goal was achieved.

<rant>

To be honest, it's not going to be achieved because there is no legal
basis for it.

I never fail to be amazed at the arrogance I see by a few Debian people.
I have proved via intent that there is no legal basis for Debian
requiring that we include exceptions in GPL code for applications
written from scratch for KDE (and RMS agrees). That means that out of
over 300 applications for KDE there is maybe 5 that have potential
licensing conflicts. That means some 99% of KDE *applications* could be
carried by Debian with no legal conflict! Right now! They have no legal
backing for exluding them. Most distributions carry all KDE apps -
Debian won't carry any because of problems they have with a couple. And
then they take their issues with a couple apps and extend it to the
whole KDE project - creating "KDE is illegal" FUD in the media.
Whatever.

They still refuse based on what I get as "convience" factors for
packagers! Sorry, but I don't approve of modifying people's licenses
just on Debian's whim without legal justification. They say it will make
it easier for Debain packagers - well, I personally care less. What
Debian is totally ignoring is the amount of effort it would take to
contact 100's of people who worked on 100's of apps just to satisfy
something Debian has no legal right to ask for in the first place. This
is what I consider major arrogance. They can of course require whatever
they feel like, but then don't say it's because of legal issues that
they don't carry KDE. It's quite simply not true. They can legally carry
KDE applications *now*. They won't.

Quite honestly, screw this. It's not fair to KDE and things like this
are a large part of why most KDE people simply ignore Debian.

If Debian is serious about carrying KDE apps, not just libraries, then I
would be happy to help them pick all the 100's of applications they can
carry that are all either original GPL code or at least don't use anyone
elses. There will be no license changes to these, as they are not
required. You can't use the excuse "well, our packagers can't tell what
license is what" because I will help.

If your not happy with this as a first step then sorry, but I will be
very vocal about how I tried to get things working with Debian and
exactly what the situation is.

</rant>

> 
> Steve

-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
http://www.mosfet.org - The place for KDE development news.
mosfet@mandrakesoft.com
mosfet@kde.org

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