From kde-licensing  Mon Jun 26 01:32:00 2000
From: mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:32:00 +0000
To: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96198303909781

forge wrote:
> 
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > mosfet wrote:
> >
> > > No, absolutely not. I personally won't accept a situation where we have
> > > to tell all the people hacking KDE apps for fun and to improve Linux
> > > that they have to modify their licenses just for Debian's sake. Again,
> > > this is not fair to KDE and the free software developers,
> >
> > I'm not asking you to change the terms of the license since you
> > say there's no need to do so (according to RMS).  I'm only asking
> > you to explicitely state what you say is already implied.
> > There's no need to contact hundreds of past contributors and ask
> > them because you say that they have _already_ given implied
> > permission.  If you are arguing that you can't add the
> > clarification because you'd have to contact hundreds of
> > contributors to ask them, then that means that they _haven't_
> > given implied permission.  So have they, or haven't they?
> >
> 
> I thought we went over this already ?
> 
> If the lead programers on KDE changed the license to say something
> a little different from the stock GPL they can be sued by the coders
> who were not contacted regardless of weather it is something they
> would have assented to  given the choice.
> 
> You can't be successfully sued for using code the way it was written
> however.
> 

Well, to be a little bit clearer it's not my nor anyone else's right to
change the text of someone else's license at all. Even if it is only to
add a clarification and doesn't change the rights given at all. Linking
KDE apps to Qt is plainly legal, changing someone else's license text
without their permission is plainly not (which is what was being asked
of us).

You know, even if it was legal it's still a nonsensical request. Were
talking about 100's of apps here and requests to make 100's of changes
with have no legal need. I'm still up in arms that Debian requests such
things.

> > > This issue seems mostly based on mistrust on Debian's part.
> >
> > Debian is being very careful and tries to keep to its standards.
> > We have no big bucks to make from assuming it's okay because we
> > probably won't get sued.
> 
> People who are afraid of merits lawsuits are being irrational.
> *Anyone* can sue you for *anything*.  You only need to protect
> yourself from real cases by living clean.  You protect yourself
> from fraudulent cases by employing a good lawyer who can expose
> the fraudulence.
> 
> Unless your claim is that someone can successfully sue on these
> grounds you shouldn't claim it's about law.  I do accept the idea
> of only working with explicit licenses.  It's based on the
> principles of the people involved and as such needs no justification.
> only consistency, which it seams to have.  Except with respect to
> KDE libs.

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