On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:38:36PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> [Note: I am moving this to debian-legal, where it belongs.]
Good.
> > At this point I'm going to reiterate my concern about linking Qt to
> > the GPL'd boot floppies code. Don't do it, it's a violation of
> > license as far as I can tell.
> >
>
> Bottom line is that Debian has publicly supported QT2's license. If not then how
> about clearing this issue up publicly, have you or not?
>
> The conclusion that we came to, I believe, is that Qt 2.0 is DFSG-free
> (Open Source). That doesn't mean that it's GPL compatible (it's not,
> IIRC)), which is a separate issue.
Yes, we did.
> Please read the debian-legal archives for more information. You can
> find them at
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/
> The most relevant months are Nov and Dec 1998. There may also be some
> relevant messages in the debian-devel archive.
>
> I am not trying to say that Qt is a bad library or that its licensing
> is bad in some way, BTW. But its license is not compatible with the
> GPL.
Correct. This is a problem and it will keep KDE out of Debian until
resolved. Guess who gets to resolve it? I must be mad I tell you.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Overfiend> partycle: I seriously do need a vacation from this package.
I actually had a DREAM about introducing a stupid new bug
into xbase-preinst last night. That's a Bad Sign.
Attachment:
pgpZOvuGXP7c0.pgp
Description: PGP signature