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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date:       2000-08-16 5:37:48
[Download RAW message or body]

How the hell did you get out of my killfile?  *grumble*

On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:52:45PM -0500, mosfet wrote:
> > 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.

So Debian is supposed to change its policies - policies which have been in
effect long before KDE had even been thought of - for one little project
which has essentially given the finger to anyone who dares question KDE's
license compatibility?

Not likely to happen.  Certainly not likely for a single project.  We
don't make exceptions like that.  We're not Red Hat.  When faced with the
prospects of lost profits because they didn't include KDE since it was
against their policies, they tucked tail and ran the first time they had
an out and now make excuses and apologies to people who say they were
counting on them to stick to their guns on the issue.  While I suspect at
least half of them had no better reason than not liking what KDE is, there
are still a great many who had genuine concerns about the code.

Nobody here is going to question Red Hat should they include Qt Designer.
There is clearly and obviously no problem with doing so.  Debian has a
policy problem with it though.  And we're not going to make an exception
to the longstanding policy to please a few people who are just going to
get it elsewhere anyway.


> > 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.

So does Mandrake, apparently.

Debian also does not include pine.  The license for pine has always been
non-free, but after it was pointed out that Debian could not under a
strict reading of the license do what it was doing (regardless of whether
or not UW had a problem with it), it was removed from the distribution.
The license has since changed and is only a few words away from making
pine into real free software (OSD/DFSG compatible too) but those words
aren't there and UW is in no hurry to change them.  OF course, if you
assume intent is good enough, pine is okay since clearly what they meant
would allow modified versions on ftp sites as well as CDs..  They just
didn't think to put those few words in there.

Debian won't touch it until those few words are added.  This is how it's
always been.  No surprise there.


> > 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.

Doesn't matter what I think.  Debian's policies are there because Debian's
developers agreed that it was generally a good thing.  And they agreed
that exceptions to those would generally be a bad thing, so the issue
isn't up for debate (other than by KDE supporters, who can't seem to live
with it for some reason..)

This is a hopeless impasse.  Debian wants KDE.  Debian's policies require
that KDE have a clear and explicit license.  It doesn't, KDE believes an
implicit one is enough, and Debian will not change its policy.  KDE
supporters and developers would sooner die than make the licenses all
explicit and tidy because the only major organization asking for it is
Debian and the lot of you have a thing against us because we supposedly
have a thing against you.  Everyone will argue about it, the issue will
die down because everyone will get sick of the arguments (I'm still sick
of them from the last 3-4 times) and the whole thing will come up again in
a few weeks/months.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

-- 
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

<Delenn> I wouldn't make it through 24 hours before I'd be firing up the grill
         and slapping a few friends on the barbie.
<spacemoos> Why would you slap friends with barbies, thats kinda kinky

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