Re: kde/gpl discussion is silly
Hi,
Let me see if I can paraphrase your stance. You say that there
are no absolutes when it comes to licencing, specifically free
software licencing, when the licence is conferred by being part of
the packaged sources, or dispplayed on a web site, because, in your
opinion, it can not be proved in a court of law, lacking digital
certificates or witnesses or other traditional means.
(I agree with this in part; nothing is absolute, including
whether either one of use exists; you-all are a figment of my
admittedly diseased imagination. Leaving that as an exercise in
metaphysics, I contend that one may indeed depose that the free
software was indeed licenced under the GPL, citing prior art, and
good faith arguments.)
Then you go on to say that since there are no absolutes, we
need depend on our not-so-common common sense. (fair, enough, so
far). (BTW, I do not appreciate people making ad hominem attacks on
RMS, in aforum where he can't defend himself. Calling him crazy is
an attack. Attacking him behind is back is, umm, mildly despicable).
You then go on to assert that people finding flaws in the
licence are conspiracy theorists. (You are beginning to loose
credibility now).
Manoj> Nope. If they really want us to distribute theor code. they
Manoj> can change the licence, or stop using QT.
aj> they will not do this, because there is not a problem with qt.
aj> you think different, so you should go there, and explain them that
aj> there is a problem.
Umm, no. I have no incentive. I see an issue with licencing
that prevents me from distributing the binaries. So I stop
distribution -- I see no reason to go ask them to change their
licences (heck, they have the absolute right to use whatever licences
they wish, and I have no right to ask them to change.)
aj> an there is realy no problem with gpl/qt : because at law _there_
aj> opinion as licence giver has the ruleing.
Incidentally; the law states that the licence they give me is
binding; I can depend on the licence; the opinions of the licence
holder are irrelevant. If their opinion is really different, they
should explicitly state so in their licence.
aj> if you say "the licence allows me to ..." and the author sais "no,
aj> it does not", then there might be a problem. but this is not the
aj> case.
Actually, I say that the GPL allows me to change anything that
is part of the sources, which indeed includes a subset of QT, so I
say I have a right to modify a subset of QT. This is not a problem,
you think?
aj> you say "maybe the licence does not allow ..." and the author sais
aj> "it does." so no need to worry.
Pardon me, but your statements really do little for my
proto-ulcer ;-). If the authors opinions are different from the
licence they have put on the software, let them amend the
licence. Until then, this is too fraught with potential minefields
for me to venture near.
manoj
--
A gen'ral sets his army in array In vain, unless he fight and win the
day. -- Denham
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: