[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:       2000-08-21 8:15:32
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:12:56PM -0500, mosfet wrote:
> > KDE has never attempted to take inventory on this (indeed it would not be
> > easy to do..)  I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you that I believe this to be
> > because they realize just how much there would be and how much of a
> > problem it would cause if they had to admit now that there is not and
> > could not be any implicit permission.
> 
> Talk about delusional ;-) If you look at the list archive I've offered
> several time to do just what you said. You usually are off throwing some
> tantrum and trying to filter my emails.

If any real amount of care were taken in building the list, it would
certainly go a long way toward making a resolution possible, but would
anybody involved with KDE be seriously interested in using this
information to get explicit permission applied to KDE?  You have been very
adimant that it's not needed for any part of KDE because there is implicit
permission.  There is no need to trace every two-line patch to its owner
or anything since fixing typos and the like don't exactly get you
Copyright over a piece of code you didn't write.

For the most part, a message from the Copyright holders of a package
putting their intent into words to clarify an uncertainty in something we
can include in the package's Copyright file (email has usually served for
this purpose) has been enough.  Granted such a message needs to pass by a
lot of eyes and needs to represent a lot of people, but I can see no
reason why this would not satisfy Debian's need to have something to point
to explaining exactly what can and can't be done provided there's some
trail to follow for the stuff that's not done by KDE people or for KDE so
they can be tracked down and asked.

I've never promised they can all be located or even if located, would
agree to such a thing once asked (but KDE has already assumed they agree
because they haven't objected yet...)  Still, that would certainly cut
down the code in question substantially.  Some of it could be replaced if
needed.  No idea what would happen with something like kghostscript, but
not being able to distribute kghostscript with clear terms for doing so is
certainly a lot less to worry about than all of KDE.  It doesn't have to
be a huge nightmare and IMO should have been done over the course of a
couple of weeks spent some two years ago.  I really don't see why this is
so impossible.

-- 
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

If we want something nice to get born in nine months, then sex has to
happen.  We want to have the kind of sex that is acceptable and fun for both
people, not the kind where someone is getting screwed. Let's get some cross
fertilization, but not someone getting screwed.
        -- Larry Wall

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