Re: Debian i386 freeze
Philip Hands wrote:
>The ``well the author said it was OK'' stuff is worthless, unless the packag
>es
>include statements to that effect it in their copyright files.
>...
>Lets say I issued some software under a licence that was the GPL except that
> it
>also insisted that you send me 1000.00 UKP if you didn't remove it from you
>system within on month of installation. I then publicly declare that the
>payment clause doesn't mean what it says, and that even if it did mean that,
>I wouldn't enforce it --- does that make any difference ?
Yes it does. I know of nothing to say that permissions given by a copyright
holder have to be in writing. A subsequent public declaration cancelling
a clause of a licence supersedes that licence. The only problem with a
verbal declaration is providing evidence. Evidence for kde's position
is overwhelming.
Please get it clear that kde's GPL licence can only apply to kde code.
There is no way it can apply or be deemed to apply to Qt, because kde
are not the authors of Qt. They have no right at all to make any licence
terms in respect of Qt and in any case the kde package does not include
Qt, which is, of course, a separate library. Debian make no assertions
about Qt in including kde in contrib (which is where it belongs).
The GPL is not something with a separate existence of its own: it only has
meaning in relation to the piece of code to which it is applied. Kde
have not claimed to have put Qt under the GPL.
Please stop chasing this red herring!
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"But my God shall supply all your need according to his
riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: