Lalo Martins wrote: > > Wrong. Anybody can redistribute Qt Free Edition on ftp or > > CD-ROM without paying us, even if they charge a fee. Debian > > and RedHat are free to putting Qt on their CD-ROMs without This is rubbish. Debian produces _NO_, I repeat _NO_, cd-roms. Debian _ONLY_ maintains a big ftp archive with all the stuff in. Even if it is not known by TrollTech, Qt is included there, KDE is included there, too. Several CD-Vendors produce CDs with Debian, partially with other stuff, partially plain Debian. It's up to the vendors to decide what they want to included and what not. > > paying us a cent. What we require is that Qt is redistributed > > unmodified and as a whole. People who use Qt to write > > proprietary software (i.e. not free software) must obtain a > > Qt Professional Edition. > > So basically there is plenty of reson to leave qt out of main, > since this is against the philosofies of Free Software, DFSG and > Debian; but there isn't any reason not to include them in CDs. > If there was a "cd-ok" distribution, people would be able to use > kde from the CD only, without any download. Not that I think > this is a good thing, but lotsa people do. :-) They are already included. For example the German bookstore JFL has Debian, Qt and KDE on their cd set. The only thing a vendor has to do with the non-free section is that he *has to* check the licenses of the packages himself if he wants to include parts of it on his cdrom. I think this is a fair amount of work for a cd vendor who - except for that - only has to copy our ftp server or OfficialCD. Before this discussion grows into a big thread we should consider what we want. Do we want to produce a _free_ Linux distribution or do we want to make life easier for cd vendors? Regards, Joey -- Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.
Description: PGP signature