Re: Debian i386 freeze
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
Dale> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Where I disagree however is that the GPL confers rights to the
>> recipient of a program, as well as upon the distributor, and those
>> rights are enforceable by the recipient (otherwise people could
>> GPL their code, wait for it to get popular, and then withdraw the
>> GPL, and cash in).
Dale> As the copyright holder they have the right to change the
Dale> license at any time. Thus, the next release of any GPL code, by
Dale> the author can always be more restrictive, even completely
Dale> proprietary. The copyright empowers the creation of the
Dale> license, not the other way around.
Hmm. But the point still remains: The GPL confers rights to
the recipient of a program, as well as upon the distributor, and
those rights are enforceable by the recipient (I can't yank the GPL
out from under you; all I can do is release the next verion not under
the GPL; but I can't just say ok, play time is over, Pay me for the
software now).
>> In the case of KDE, the rights that are supposedly being given are neither
>> ours, nor the KDE folks' to grant, so the GPL should not be used.
>>
Dale> FUD. KDE has the perfect right to apply the GPL to their code.
Yes. But is the application of GPL makes it impossible for us
to distribute the binaries, we should not carry KDE. I am not going
to get into a shouting match whether they have a right to do it. All
I canre about is whether we can then distribute it, or not, under the
law.
>> So KDE is compilable without using the Qt header files, is that
>> right ? I don't think so.
Dale> And thus its dependence on non-free code. The KDE source is
Dale> free by the definition of the DFSG, but can not be included in
Dale> main because it depends on a non-free library for its
Dale> construction and use. This is the clear definition of a contrib
Dale> package.
Hmm. It also depends on a subset of the (non free) sources if
it needs the headers too. I don't know. Seems like a grey area (the
GPL talks about interface definitions, and is that not what a .h file
is?)
>> For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
>> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
>> files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
>> the executable.
Dale> The GPL cannot impose such demands on the QT software, and can
Dale> only apply to the code that the author has created.
Nothing is being imposed on QT. All it says is, if it is to be
distributed under the GPL, then the following criterion have to be
met. We distribute it. We have to meet all the criterion for
distributing it under the GPL. As I see it, we may not be able to.
Can I say that a software I have is under the GPL, but refuse
to provide source? Suer, since I can't violate my own licence. Can
you then distribute it under the GPL? huh?
Me, I would support any move to throw the KDE packages out
totally.
manoj
whose rand sig generator has, as usual, performed beyond call of duty
--
"What's the definition of a good flame? One you agree with..." Karl
Lehenbauer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: