Re: How to reratify the DFSG ?
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 02:47:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> > Furthermore, I think the DFSG isn't very well-worded in general - it
> > seems to have a couple of rather specific points where general rules
> > would be better. For example, it says there must be `no
> > discrimination against fields of endeavour'; surely it should say that
> > no restrictions are allowed except ones that it should list.
Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It could be argued the GPL discriminates against people writing
> programs for Qt. In fact, RMS argues that it does. Clearly he is
> discriminating against both KDE in his current interpretation which is
> a turnaround from the things he was saying before that about netscape.
That's really reaching. There is no language in the GPL which discriminates
against people writing programs for Qt. People writing programs for
Qt are perfectly free to use (and redistribute) GPL'd programs.
> The particular example was that GPL additions for non-GPL code
> (Mozilla) could be written in seperate files and later compiled/linked
> in. However, saying that KDE cannot legally use the GPL because it
> links Qt is clearly discrimination--whether it's on the part of the
> license or RMS is something I cannot say for sure.
I think you're repeating rumor. Qt's license prohibits certain kinds of
distribution, GPL requires that those forms of distribution be legal. If
you can't satisfy the terms of the license you can't redistribute.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org