I think this matter has gone beyond a consensus of debian-legal as any sort of authority. If (and I do say if) we want any sort of official answer.. we need to consult either a lawyer giving us a legal (ie, we can hold him to it officially) opinion or RMS who can atleast speak from an "what he intended" point of view. On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 04:24:24PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > "Darren O. Benham" wrote: > > > I was under the impression (but a lawyer or RMS or someone know > > *knows* should comment) that because the KDE programs are > > written in such a way that they were obviously intended to be > > linked to Qt.. and Qt is included in the original author's make > > file... that KDE created programs are not the problem. > > Since we have release-critical bugs against GPL'ed packages that > depends on XForms, I don't think consensus on debian-legal would > agree. > > I argued this with xwatch (links with XForms) and the > debian-legal consensus at the time was to seek a license change, > which I did. > > Peter > -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <gecko@benham.net> <>< * * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org> * * <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org> * =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgp33kgXhTsit.pgp
Description: PGP signature