Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?
Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The license issue seems controversial at least. Personally I would
> be willing to assume an implicit exception for Qt in the KDE license,
> except that the KDE developers refuse to add that exception explicitly.
> They've had ample opportunity.
And except that the license is bogus when it comes to modifying it and
having someone else redistribute it. So KDE gives a special exception:
do people who have modified the code have the right to also give that
special exception? Or are they bound by the license?
If they're bound by the license, what good is the exception?
I don't see how you can claim that people who modify KDE code
and redistribute it are not bound by the KDE license.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org