On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 09:31:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > "Darren O. Benham" wrote: > > > I think this matter has gone beyond a consensus of debian-legal > > as any sort of authority. > > Why? Perhaps debian-legal consensus has no `authority', but I'm > satisfied with it. > > What has changed since this came up on debian-legal before? The > only thing is that KDE hasn't changed its license from the GPL > but other distributions have decided to use it anyway. Debian > now stands alone not using KDE because of licensing issues. If > this is enough to raise your doubts concerning our stand on the > issue, I think you should feel free to seek such clarification > from RMS. Best to do that before we spend big bucks with a > lawyer trying to interpret KDE's messy situation. Because we're not including KDE on legal reasons of licensing. If there is no license conflict, legally, then we need to change our consensus to "we don't include KDE be cause most of the people on debian-legal just don't like it" or some such... Everybody on debian-legal has an opinion.. and most voice it.. but then the discussion just peters out with the Pro-KDE people not having enough of an argument to put KDE back in... and the Anti-KDE people not having enough of a case to shutdown the argument once and for all. -- 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:
pgpTRv6MyTCRM.pgp
Description: PGP signature