[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:       2000-08-19 1:50:03
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> mosfet wrote:
> 
> > Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > >          I'm just saying that statement applies to source code and
> > > > > everything in the original tar ball, not to binaries derived from
> > > > > those sources.  Can you would mean you'd have to include the
> > > > > original binary as well as a modified one, or some sort of binary
> > > > > patch.
> > > >
> > > > No, all binaries
> > >
> > > [that you make]
> > >
> > > >                  have to follow the QPL as well! It explictly says this
> > > > in the license. *Not* just source.
> > >
> > > You read that it explicitely says this in 4c, and I don't.  Not
> > > building a binary is not the same as modifying a binary.
> > >
> >
> > No, it's not. But not providing something in the Qt package very clearly
> > breaks section 2 of the QPL.
> 
> So I take their tar ball, compile part of it, distribute the
> compiled part with their tar ball entirely included in a
> subdirectory, and I'm breaking section 2 because I didn't build
> _all_ of it?

So you are willing to get around the GPL & QPL by shipping source 
that compiles to different binaries than you ship ?  It's a good
thing you don't speak for Debian.  Most of them wouldn't agree
with that on principle.
 
> I have a different definition of `package' than you do in:
> 
>  2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form
>  provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted
>  to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released
>  by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed.
> 
> I have incuded the entire tar ball as released by initial
> developer.

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