[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 8:49:38
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:35:19AM -0700, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > 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.

Two reasons:

	1. my fuckup.  the program is kghostVIEW, not script, so it's not
	   theirs.
	2. even if it were, it's not in their financial best interests to
	   do so and companies tend to go where the cash is.

-- 
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

<knghtbrd> "Java for the COBOL Programmer"
<knghtbrd> who writes these things?
<raptor> people on crack
<raptor> and cobol programmers
<raptor> :)
<knghtbrd> that's redundant.

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