Re: kde/gpl discussion is silly
Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de> wrote:
> 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 ?
Are you saying that German law is likely to make the actions
of Debian developers in Germany illegal? If so, we should post
a warning to that effect on our developer's page.
> - 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.
Again, does this endanger any Debian activities in Germany? If so,
we should warn people about this.
> - header files are interfaces, and interfaces are not protected
> by copyrights.
Since this is permissive, rather than restrictive, I don't think
we have to worry about it. But realize that laws are different
in other countries -- and not necessarily different in fashions
which make sense.
> - only the author can sue you of breaking a licence.
That's almost the way it is in the U.S. -- but in the U.S. control of
the license may pass to another person (or to a corporation). But
this doesn't really matter as long as you act within the terms of
the license.
> 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.
Widely distributed text files which the author appears to be aware
of grant a certain level of authenticity. Note that we tend to
err on the side of not-distributing if there's any question as to
the author's wishes. We always have, and I believe we always should.
This is important for social as well as for legal reasons.
> 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.
Yes, and distributing something when it's not completely clear that we
have the right to is something that is rather likely to cause problems.
> 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 ?".
You already have the right to link against qt. They've already given
that right. If you send that mail you're not solving anything.
The right you need to ask for is the right to distribute the binaries
under terms where you don't have to guarantee that qt can be modified
and redistributed.
Apparently you haven't really paid attention to what the problem is?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: