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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: the apps with problem
From:       Philip Hands <phil () hands ! com>
Date:       2000-08-07 14:45:30
[Download RAW message or body]

Philippe Fremy <philippe@yalbi.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When reading on the license issue, the problem always come down to "the code
> included in kde that wasn't developed specifically for Kde", and doesn't then
> have implicit permission to link with Qt. 
> 
> Note that for everything else RMS agreed that the implicit permission
> was granted. One can hope that debian folks will one day follow.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

To describe an analogous situation:

  The border controls between European Union countries no longer
  require an EU citizen to have a Passport to travel between the
  countries of the EU.

  Does this mean that you no longer need a Passport to go from the UK
  to France?

  Well, no, because without a passport (or equivalent proof of ID) you
  cannot prove that you are an EU citizen, so you need it to prove you
  don't need it.

Likewise, while an implicit exception to the GPL may exist for many KDE
programs, unless someone is willing to provide some form of proof that
a particular program falls under that implicit permission, Debian
cannot act upon it.

So what would be required in order to act upon the implicit permission?

Well, I'd have thought it would need a note from the author(s),
stating that they had exclusive copyright to the work, and that they
had intended that there be an implicit permission to link the code
against Qt, and that they were sure that all patches by others were
provided on the basis that such a GPL exception existed.

If they're willing to go that far of course, I don't understand why
they'd object to making that statement in the form of an explicit
exception to the GPL in the license of the program.

Anyone that's in a position to prove that the implicit exception
exists, is also in a position to change the license.

If the implicit permission cannot be proven, then I don't see how
Debian can be expected to act upon it.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
Vote against SPAM!  http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/

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