Re: Debian i386 freeze

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> Whether staticly linked or dynamicly linked, the QT copyright holder has
> no interest in restricting distribution, 

This is equivalent to claiming that Qt is public domain.  That's just
not true.

> and I see nothing in the current licenses that suggests there is any
> restriction on distributing binaries so produced. Their license speaks
> to commercial development as requiring extra licensing.

As has been said so many times before: The kde binaries require that
you distribute the sources -- all the sources required by those binaries
-- under terms where the sources can be modified and redistributed.

This conflicts with the Qt license, which doesn't allow such distribution.

The KDE license covers this case by saying that it means that KDE binaries
can't be distributed at all.

> > Yes. The source is free. The binary is not.

> Says you. I certainly don't see it. You claim that the binary
> "contains" proprietary portions of QT. I would claim that it does not.
> Without the library installed it will not run. It is the library that
> is "not free".

Read the KDE license, please.  What you're saying here is just plain
irrelevant.

-- 
Raul


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org