Re: Debian i386 freeze
>>
>> --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 07:16:04PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> > On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>> > > > > In the case of KDE, the rights that are supposedly being given are =
>> neither=20
>> > > > > ours, nor the KDE folks' to grant, so the GPL should not be used.
>> > > > >=20
>> > > > FUD. KDE has the perfect right to apply the GPL to their code.
>> > >=20
>> > > But not to a binary that includes more than their code.
>> > >=20
>> > Whether staticly linked or dynamicly linked, the QT copyright holder has
>> > no interest in restricting distribution, 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.
>>
>> the 'problem' is not the qt-licenses. The GPL is the problem.
>> It say: You can't put free (GPL) code and non-free (non GPL) code together.
>> All code must be GPLed!
>> If I get a binary with GPL-Code, the distributor (in this case debian) must
>> me get all source in GPL to make a new (the same) binary.
>>
>> We can't send QT in GPL to our users. We can't distribute KDE as binary.
Can't KDE be dynamically linked against QT ? IIRC we do have programs
in contrib that are under GPL, and dynamically linked against Motif for
example ? Or am I wrong ?
Note: I haven't paid much attention to this.
--j
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: