Re: KDE not in Debian?

[David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com>]

Andreas Pour wrote:

> Errh, I keep hearing this misconception that BSD code can be relicensed as GPL
> code, but can not figure out where it comes from.  How can you re-license BSD
> *source code* as GPL code?

I took me a while to read and digest your analysis of the GPL. I have to
say that it was very good. I am not a lawyer, and hopefully never will
be. I found this analysis quite informing.

> Regardless of how you interpret Section 2(b), it is a fact that Qt code is not
> mixed with KDE code.  Qt, as a library, can be "considered [an] independent and
> separate work[] in [itself]", and in fact Qt source code is distributed separately
> from the KDE source code, so pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 2 whatever
> provisions of the GPL you think Section 2(b) makes applicable to the Qt code, the
> last part of Section 2 excuses from those provisions.  The KDE source code is not
> derivative of the Qt source code.

I have to correct a small error here. Qt is indeed distributed with KDE
from ftp.kde.org in the same directory. However, lest anyone think this
a victory over the scofflaw KDE developers, note well that the full Qt
sources are also distributed with the KDE sources in the same place.

> > > Although I disagree with RMS on a wide range of
> > > topics, he is the model of decorum and good manners on the mailing
> > > lists, and sets a proper example of net behavior.
> >
> > As long as we're all slamming on each other here, and calling each
> > other "moronic idiots", and "outrageous", and slurring on each other's
> > manners...
> 
> Errh, just for clarification, I was not calling anyone a moronic idiot :-).

And I don't believe I was slamming RMS by praising his exemplary
manners. 

David Johnson