Re: KDE et al may not incorporate other people's GPL'd code
On 22 Oct 1997, Paul Seelig wrote:
> ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
>
> > If I find that anyone has taken some of my GPL'd code and put it into a
> > Qt-dependent program I _will_ insist that they do not distribute the
> > result until they have replaced my code or made their program not
> > depend on Qt.
> >
> IMHO you are exaggerating. This attitude is contrary to the spririt
> of free software.
QT's licensing policies are in fact even more contrary to the spirit of
free software.
> Free software means that anybody can reuse your code for any project as
> long as the sources stay available.
Doesn't it also mean that you cannot change the licence terms in a more
broader sense?
Anyhow, it can in practical cases probably be very hard to make clear
point. Where does a given piece of code begin and end to be a
distinguishable piece of software? Where lies the boundary
between including, thus modifying, and independant coexistance?
But in principle, I think Ian Jackson has a valid point.
However gladly I would at some day be able to buy a motif-dev.deb or a
wordperfect.deb or, heck, for the matter of argument even a ms-office.deb,
IMHO it is essential for Debian to be mature and respectable purely on the
basis of truly free software. Maybe not as much because of any possible
strings attached as for the state of mind and the spirit that keeps this
project going.
I like to think that commerce attracts a different kind of excellence.
Cheers,
Joost
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: