[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: 2000-06-25 1:22:12
[Download RAW message or body]
Steve Hutton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 1- You are saying that the GPL is fine for KDE because KDE
> > authors give implicit agreement that (contrary to the terms of
> > the GPL) linking to Qt is fine.
>
> Not everyone even agrees that the GPL forbids linking to QPL'd code.
>
> So there are really these stances:
>
> 4) Linking GPL'd code to QPL'd QT is legal, as long as implied
> implied permission is given.
>
> (This is the stance RMS seems to have expressed recently)
>
> 5) Linking GPL'd code to QPL'd QT is legal only if explicit permission
> is given.
>
> So the problem is that the only way to satisfy those who fall into the
> category 5 above is to change the license of all GPL'd KDE code,
> and the copyright holders of such code tend to fall into the
> first 4 categories.
Except that the post that you were replying to assumed stance #4
(and not #5) and asked for a clarification in that context (not a
change of license at all).
So what's the problem in clarifying the license if you are in
camp #4?
Heck, what's the problem with clarifying the existing license
even if you are in camps #1, #2 or #3?
Peter
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic