[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:       2000-08-20 23:59:07
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:31:03AM -0400, Steve Hutton wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is fine, it is just misleading to say it is legally motivated.  I could
> make a distribution tomorrow with a policy of not shipping any apps
> that don't say "I like pudding" in front of their licenses.  I wouldn't,
> however, demand that authors add that phrase so I can actually
> ship something.  Make your bed, but lie in it.  

But it is legally motivated.  Such limplicit licensing is purely dependant
on the whim of the person doing the interpretation.  We cannot be sure of
anything that isn't written down in most cases, which do include KDE given
that for every person who claims there is implicit permission there is
another who says they refuse to give Debian or anyone else such
permission.  Any interpretation we could make would involve assumptions on
our part which are almost always going to be a bad idea in a legal sense.

Essentially, we'd be placing ourselves in the position that we may all too
easily find out we're wrong and be slapped with a lawsuit for breach of
license.  Debian cannot risk this and has adopted the safeguard that we
require licensing to be specific.  This is only ever a problem when the
upstream authors can or will not provide specifics (as with KDE).  It is
also sometimes a problem if we cannot track down the upstream author
because they are long gone now.  Developers have proven very resourceful
in this area, making this sometimes less difficult than it seems.  (the
whole ircII incident springs to mind as one that affected me..)


> > 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.
> 
> Who is doing the demanding?  KDE seems to not care what Debian does,
> remember?  

KDE seems to do enough bashing of Debian for not including KDE that I
think it's safe to say that they want KDE in Debian.  The other
possibility is that these people are all trolling and for some reason
quite amused that there are people who still care enough to answer the
rediculous claims made places such as this list.


> > > 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.
> 
> Oh, so the GPL is about not "jumping through hoops?"  All this time I thought
> it was about Freedom, silly me.  RMS must be quite the marketeer...

He's quite something, that's for sure.  You won't get a lot of praise of
the holy church of GNU out of me.  If you ask me, Richard needs his ego
deflated a few sizes.  If you're not convinced of that, you should find
him speaking publicly sometime - or better yet accepting an award or
something.  That nice award Debian got this year?  The FSF got it last
year.  Richard got on stage and proclaimed it was "like giving the rebel
fleet award to Han Solo"...  And I thought I had an ego problem.

-- 
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

Technology is a constand battle between manufacturers producing bigger and
more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots.
        -- Slashdot signature

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