[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 4:32:35
[Download RAW message or body]

mosfet wrote:
> 
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Troll is spreading confusion about the GPl/Qt licensing issue by
> > doing this and you know it.
> 
> Troll is perfectly within bounds by using an unmodified GPL and you know
> it. Despite your personal feelings there is nothing wrong at all with
> what they are doing. Asking a company to use a modified license to link
> to their own software without any legal basis is arrogant, Debian
> dropping the app because of it is insane.

Nah.  That's mot insane.  Butchering configure scripts and deleting 
whole sub directories is ok when someone you like has code that will 
be affected.  However when that is not the case making a deb from a
single and clearly separate tarball is too much hassle.

I don't much care that Debian doesn't ship KDE.  If I did I would be
bothered about E-Smith too.  I do care that those who claim that as
a grope they are consistent, live up to those words.  

Right now the following is a paraphrase of Debians position that looks
bad unless someone can "clarify":

It's OK to ship kdelibs today but Nobody in Debian gives a rats ass.
It won't be OK to ship QT-2.2 with integrated Designer but we will 
perform major hacks and possibly circumvent part of the QPL if
necessary.

> It just goes to show Debian is using speculation and personal opinion
> about Troll Tech's intent (without actually knowing anyone in the
> company) instead of legal backing to make their decisions about what to
> carry and what not. Great policy, there.

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