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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From:       Kevin Sproul <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2000-06-23 0:16:56
[Download RAW message or body]

> 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.

KOffice dose a hell of a lot on it's own.  I have not seen
any signs of 3rd party code in there.  How about bundling 
up that with the LGPL parts ?

Of course then the issue of requiring explicit permission 
even for your own code comes up.  It just sounds like a
distraction when people say this is not an issue.

There are Debian maintainers who actively work with KDE 
and at least one that routinely produces .deb files of
KDE.  Even these people don't see the need to suggest 
pushing KOffice into Debian.  Who cares ?  Debian has 
it's rools and we are not in a position to judge the 
merits of those rools, mearly the consistency.  On that
score they seem OK.

Frankly people saying nasty things about KDE on Slashdot 
is far more important to me than Debian including it.
you don't see me grumbling about E-Smith 
( http://www.e-smith.net ) excluding KDE do you ?

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