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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       Kevin Forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2000-08-16 11:28:53
[Download RAW message or body]

It's funny that with all the ranting going back and forth in 
this thread, the question that started it has not been answered.  

1. Will Debian extract designer from QT or will it extract QT 
from Debian?

2. If it extracts QT from Debian, will it remove those apps 
which depend on QT?

It's a matter of consistency.  Anything less will mean that the
chant of "We are consistent in applying our roles" is less than 
it seams.

1. No apps with incompatible licenses.

2. No apps dependent on code we don't include.

3. No sorting through packages to extract bits with compatible 
  licenses.

If I was a Debian developer I would file a bug report on this 
one.  However I am not.


Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 07:37:54PM -0400, Steve Hutton wrote:
> > > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> > >
> > >     Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a
> > >     GPL-covered program and Qt and link them together, no matter how.
> >
> > Simply repeating this over and over won't make it true.  It's
> > _one_opinion_, and the law give no extra weight to the author
> > of a license when it comes time to interpret the license.  There's
> > no room for "what I really meant when I wrote that was..."
> 
> This is the FSF's opinion.  It's also Debian's opinion.  And it's Red
> Hat's opinion as well.  (though they'll give you an excuse about "market
> forces" making them ignore these issues until they are resolved one way or
> the other..  which of course will never happen...)
> 
> It's funny to read someone argue that there is no room for "what I really
> meant was..." given that is precisely what you expect Debian to accept in
> the case of GPL and QPL compatibility.  We don't think they are.  And if
> it's not enough to say "but we meant..." then it's not.  And regardless of
> the legal standings of whether or not that will hold, Debian always has
> and still does require each item of the DFSG to be explicitly met for
> inclusion into main.  We also apply the same standard of explicit
> compatibility in cases where licenses are mixed.  If the licenses aren't
> compatible at face value, they do not meet our requirements.
> 
> The GPL and QPL are a specific case where they're not.  We asked for the
> permission in writing.  We never got it.  To this date, we have yet to
> receive explicit permission to distribute KDE with Qt.  Nor will it ever
> be granted if people such as mosfet have anything to say about it.  The
> fact that KDE developers have gone on public record stating flatly that
> they have not and will not give any permission of any sort to link Qt
> kinda deflates the whole implicit permission argument.  Unless you're a
> KDE supporter who wants to rag on Debian of course, in which case speaking
> with a forked tongue is acceptable because Debian is The Enemy.
> 
> Why is KDE not in Debian?  Because KDE won't do what Debian requires of
> all packages - provide a clear license that allows Debian to do what
> Debian does.  And Debian isn't going to change or bend the rules just
> because KDE people feel like being assholes about it and then accusing us
> of refusing to work with them.
> 
> KDE will never be in Debian.  I don't have to see to that.  KDE's biggest
> proponents will do it and blame us for it.  Why the hell do you think I
> refuse to do anything more for KDE?  I'm tired of being blamed by KDE and
> Debian alike for not resolving the problem.  And being in the Debian camp,
> I happen to agree with Debian.  We are under NO OBLIGATION to package KDE.
> And KDE developers and supporters want to make it as hard as possible for
> us to do so, demanding that we change our policies for them.
> 
> Frankly, I don't trust KDE.  KDE has a history of taking code and asking
> permission later (or rather, NOT asking for permission.  Obviously
> forgiveness is easier to get than permission..)  There are several non-KDE
> apps that have been ported (kghostview, kmidi, kfloppy to name the first
> three that come to mind) and no attempt has been made to do a damned thing
> about them by KDE.  Further, I happen to know that code has been borrowed
> by native KDE applications from other GPL'd applications.  Some of it is
> even uncredited!  And yet, I'm supposed to trust that KDE has the right to
> grant permission to link code they don't own to Qt?
> 
> KDE is not, nor have they ever really been, acting in good faith.
> 
> > BTW, if someone takes my GPL'd code and links it with QT
> > without my permission, and then releases the entire source
> > for the resulting work under the GPL & QPL, how has my freedom,
> > or the freedom of the users of either piece of software been comprised?
> >
> > I can view the second author's modifications to my work,
> > and I can reuse them or derive from them if I like, even if
> > those modifications included changes to QT.  The users of
> > my software have the exact same right.
> >
> > Nobody has comprimised any freedom, unless your reason
> > for choosing the GPL was:
> >
> > "You may re-use this code as long as you make all my original
> > sources availble when you do so, and you must make the sources
> > to your additions available, AND, you must insure that anyone who
> > further derives from your derviation will not suffer through the horrible
> > inconvenience of having to distribute any portion of that work
> > through a PATCH(!)"
> >
> > Is that what Free software is about these days?
> 
> It's what the GPL is about.  Read it sometime.  The GPL demands that you
> never have to jump through any other hoops than the ones it outlines.
> Sometimes that's a real PITA (Richard and I have "discussed" (for some
> versions of "discuss", I think the discussions usually ended with him
> being rather annoyed..) why this is sometimes not a good thing) but at
> least as often as it's been annoying it's been helpful.
> 
> Nevertheless, the GPL is the GPL.  If you don't like that about the GPL,
> don't use the GPL.  If you don't like that with regard specifically to Qt,
> the FSF website includes instructions on how you may work around this
> touchy situation (pending of course Troll's new license which I admit I am
> cynnical about, but I'll reserve judgement until I read it - if it's ever
> there to read of course..)
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> <lux> if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the
>       computer masochists

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