On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 12:45:38PM +0200, Maarten Boekhold wrote: > I don't know if there's anybody following the complete threads currently > going on about KDE/QT/GPL and related stuff, but I for sure don't have > the time. However, I'm still interested in the general points made and in > an eventual outcome of the issues. > > So is there somebody who reads all and is willing to give a summary of > things said when the threads reach an end? I'm sure there are more people > interested in such a summary, and it also could be placed on the > web-site, so we have a document explaining our eventual choice. In short: Debian needs to know it's okay for KDE bins to be linked to Qt. KDE is under the GPL which says it's NOT okay. The KDE developers allow exception for Qt. The Copyright file does not spell out this exception. Coolo is the KDE package maintainer. Coolo says it's okay for bins with Qt. Coolo is a core KDE developer. Coolo can and should put the permission in Copyright. Coolo will in the future do this(?) The rest of the argument is whether or not that is enough or if it still means KDE must be yanked from hamm or whatever. As to legality of adding permission to distribute bins with Qt, well RMS has said that's fine. However, to compy with the DFSG the written permission needs to also be upstream. To those who think the permission clause is not sufficient, stick it. => I for one am willing to take the stand RMS has on this one. (Never thought I would EVER say that...)
Attachment:
pgp4qBFB6L8Fr.pgp
Description: PGP signature