From kde-licensing  Mon Aug 21 08:35:19 2000
From: Neil Stevens <multivac () fcmail ! com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:35:19 +0000
To: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96684701530446

On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Of course, I won't pretend there isn't animosity toward KDE with at
> least a few people in the project.  KDE has taken great pains to piss
> off anyone who dared disagree with them and still does.  I still believe
> this is because KDE would rather see itself destroyed than admit they
> ripped people's code without permission.  I have yet to see an admission
> that kghostscript has a licensing problem.  It must have implicit
> permission to link Qt because ... well, because it does!  And KDE can't
> make it explicit because .. well, because they don't need to since it's
> implicit.
>
> The fact that KDE does not own Copyright to ghostscript and has no legal
> basis to claim they have any permission other than that explicitly set
> out in the GPL doesn't matter.  I am supposed to take them at their word
> that there are no licensing problems in KDE despite this blatant and
> obvious example of just how much of a lie that is!  No, I've trusted KDE
> and taken them at their word too many times.  KDE has no intention of
> doing anything about any of this and never will unless someone manages
> to slap them with a lawsuit for damages (which is kinda difficult to do
> with free software since there can't really be any damages to claim..) 
> So we're back where we started.  KDE has done nothing but try to tell us
> what they believe will or at least should quiet all dissent.  Problem
> is, it's a pretty obvious lie.

If this is the case, why doesn't Aladdin or somebody sue Red Hat for 
copyright violations?  One measly test case would solve all these problems.

-- 
Neil Stevens
multivac@fcmail.com
neil@qualityassistant.com

keyserver search.keyserver.net
Fingerprint 86EA ECD4 F258 FB1B D88F 9136 4F49 90F8 CD3E 5C1C