Re: kde/gpl discussion is silly
> kde people are much less crazy than rms is. they asked us to distribute the
> software. in binary. like many other distributions do.
Why is that not stated in the package then ?
If Dan Bernstein mailed me permission to distribute a binary package of qmail,
and I failed to include that mail in the package, I'd expect the package to be
removed from the archive, because the default state for software is that one
is not allowed to distribute it, so the onus is on the distributor to show
that they have the right to distribute.
> they will not do this, because there is not a problem with qt. you think
> different, so you should go there, and explain them that there is a problem.
There is a problem with their lack of licence for the binaries though (as this
discussion proves), which would be so trivial for them to fix, that it makes
you wonder what the motive is that is stopping them.
> an there is realy no problem with gpl/qt : because at law _there_ opinion
> as licence giver has the ruleing.
Not true. How about if their opinion of the GPL were that everyone that used
their software should pay them $1000.00 a day ?
> if you say "the licence allows me to ..." and the author sais "no, it does
> not", then there might be a problem. but this is not the case.
Yes it it. I state ``This licence allows me to take the code for the KDE
binaries (including Qt) modify it, and port it to Windows NT'' --- how long
before I get a call from Trolls' lawyers if I actually tried that ?
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: