kde/gpl discussion is silly
we are no layers. i had a course of german software law. if we wanted to do
everything 100% law proof, we should stop doing debian. examples :
- a licence text file doesn't allow you anything. or did you see a
digital signature or something that can be proofed at court ?
- if you give something for free, there is no warranty, so no need to say
that. i you sell something, there has to be a warrany.
so all "no warranty" statements are without effect.
- header files are interfaces, and interfaces are not protected by copyrights.
- only the author can sue you of breaking a licence.
ok, so we are no layers, and international software law is very very
difficult anyway. and since text file licences could be faked anyway
we would have a hard stand at court.
we are no layers, but we can use something different than law :
common sence. i guess we have enough common sence, to judge what will cause
problems and what not.
in the kde case :
no kde author will ever sue anyone for useing qt. that doesn't make sence.
it's not possibvle to use their software without qt. if you realy want :
write a mail "only to be sure: i may link it with qt ?".
ok, so everything we have to worry are those parts not written by the kde
crew. since i read all files for kde beta3, i know that there are very few
files in the kde distributions, that are not written by kde themself.
we can seperate that stuff in libraries and programs.
coolo: correct me, but if i understood kalle right, some licences were changed
from gpl to lgpl ? we don't have to worry about lgpl, it's ok to use that with
qt.
kdelibs0g: QktsTreeListWidget is no problem - hey, it was written for qt. all
other stuff was removed. coolo: can you check, whether it was moved to lgpl ?
i agree with kalle, that libraries should be lgpl, if possible.
kdesupport0g: was uulib removed or changed to lgpl ? if it's gpl'ed,
that's a bad thing for a library. check with the author for qt/linking/ok.
but i'm sure it's ok for him. no problem with the other stuff.
not everything is 100% clear in the other licences, but i don't see problems.
for example, one author changed his licence to gpl, because kde people asked
him. i guess he knows what he was doing, and doesn't forbid kde to use the
source.
other code is ok : much code with bsd licences (i like bsd licences !),
or not affected (e.g. libtool is used like make, and has nothing to do with
qt).
yes, there is still some gpl code in there, that might be not from kde people.
you can ask the author if you want. but unless you have some reason to think,
that the author doesn't like gpl/qt mixes, you should let kde pass.
very few people have spoken up and sais "don't mix my code with kde".
most people don't know that there might be a problem at all.
there is no reason to make you think, that shipping kde can create bigger
problems, than shipping something else. and never forget the "no warranty"
label, which might protects us.
and if someone want's to sue debian, he does not need kde at all - nearly
every other programm will be fine, too. for breakings of copyright, only the
author can sue anyone. and for other stuff : did you sign a paper ? if you do
so, include a "no warranty", and you will be fine.
if you fear bigger problems, you shouldn't switch on a computer.
lets use common sence : why should anyone want to sue debian ?
a big company would be a much better target.
andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: