[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:       2000-08-20 2:31:46
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> Kevin Forge wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Ask whoever is packaging it now outside of Debian.

Nobody, means all Debian maintainers.  Sure, some don't care 
because it's just not his area and others don't care because 
they wish Gnome would take over the world.  Yet others don't
care because they don't think it's worth starting another 
flamewar on Debian legal.

The end result is that you can't find me a single Debian
developer who dose care enough to do this.  I don't use Debian, 
so it doesn't really affect me when they make packaging choices.  

Remember; with kdelibs we aren't talking about legal obstacles
or technical difficulties.  Just Individual will.
 
> > 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's my interpretation that it would not circumvent part of the
> QPL to omit to build one of the binaries.  I'm not the Qt2
> packager maintainer for Debian.  Ask him.  If in doubt, I'm sure
> he'd ask Troll directly.  Nobody in their right mind would ask
> KDE for licensing advice.

There is a difference between "Circumvent" and "Break" when you
are talking about licenses or contracts.  I.e. In the Merchant
of Venice a deal for a pound of flesh was ruled invalid because 
it made no mention of blood.  That's circumvention.  Legal but
still against the spirit of the contract.

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