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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-08-15 17:52:45
[Download RAW message or body]

Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 11:58:29PM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:
> > There is an interesting wrinkle in the whole QT, QPL and GPL
> > debate.  Troll has just unleashed a beta version of it's IDE
> > type software licensed under the GPL and distributed in the
> > QT package.
> >
> > Is Debian gona drop this or all of QT ?  Note that it's the
> > RAW GPL.  No exemptions.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Debian's policy (which some of you (mosfet) can't seem to get through your
> heads (mosfet)) is that we require explicit permission.  A good number of
> packages have never made it to Debian because that has been lacking and a
> good number of licenses have been changed to say what they mean, rather
> than what they previously said.  This has absolutely nothing to do with
> KDE, unless you talk to certain people (mosfet) who insist on claiming
> that Debian is biased against KDE.
> 

If Debian could get it through it's head that it has no right nor legal
basis to require free software developers to add explicit permission we
would consider Debian a lot less biased. Your stuck in a mode where you
feel free software developers should do whatever you want to their own
licensing while not having any legal basis whatsoever. Foolishness.

> KDE has the same problem - and we're not even sure that KDE has legal
> authority in a number of cases to grant any sort of implicit permissions.
> Troll Tech clearly does.  No legal question about it.  Does it meet
> Debian's policies?  No.  Will it be packaged?  Not at this time.
>

Why not? You said it was clearly legal.

This is why I think Debian has a fair share of arses.
 
> Will I be flamed for this?  Of course.  Certain people absolutely love to
> rag on Debian (mosfet) every chance they get because they feel it makes
> their distribution look better (mosfet)...  Who needs consistancy and a
> feeling of obligation to do things the right way technically, morally, and
> legally?  So flame on, it's what this list does best.  It's not like
> anyone here is actually going to do anything about the problems we have
> other than flame us for being so damned picky, careful, and consistant in
> our ways..
>

Bullshit. Your the only one who seems to think explicit modifications
are necessary. Anyone with half a clue knows better. And even when you
admit it's not necessary you still try to force people to change their
licenses to match your little world view. This is arrogance taken to an
extreme.

> /*
>  * sorry for my own little bit of trolling above directed at another
>  * troll.. (mosfet)
>  */
> 
> --
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
> Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
> The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
> 
> * Espy ponders an uplad queue called 'hell' so I can do dupload --to hell

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