Re: Debian i386 freeze
Hi,
>>"Oliver" == Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
Oliver> The kde licence cannot give any such right, because kde are not the
Oliver> authors of Qt. kde don't claim any such right, no-one imagines they
Oliver> either claim or have it. This is really not sensible!
This has been addressed elsewhere. Trolls license is the one
being violated, and any distributors can be hit.
>>
>> Umm, this is streatching it. The right to modify QT headers is
>> not theirs to give; a pure GPL implies it for binaries; we, if we
>> distribute the binaries, are equally at fault.
Oliver> But it is evident to (almost) everybody that this is not pure
Oliver> GPL.
Oh, really? How is it evident? I look at the licenses in
/usr/doc/kde*; and I keep seeing the GPL. No mods.
Oliver> Either kde regard Qt as part of the normal distribution, or
Oliver> they implicitly waive this particular requirement of the GPL.
Oliver> Whichever is the case, their actual position, and therefore
Oliver> the terms of the actual licence, are crystal clear. [Written
Oliver> licences are there to help, but they are not definitive.
Oliver> Oral statements and behaviour are equally valid, provided
Oliver> that they can be proved.]
I find this a slippery slope I would rather not walk on. If
they do indeed wish people to use their stuff, they should fix the
license. I am certainly no going to bend over backwards to imagine
there exists a modified license. Not for people who have said thay
won't ever accept a free alternative to Qt.
Oliver> with the [implied] proviso that it does not apply to Qt.
What implied proviso? You can get into a lot of hot water,
saying that the license on the product is not real, but there is an
implied license that makes it OK.
>> We do not know if the authors shall never sue us, for indeed,
>> if they were so committed, they would have amended the license.
Oliver> I think they are totally unable to understand what you are
Oliver> going on about.
Well, sorry. I see no reason there for us to continue breaking
the law, just because people can't fathom why we have such scruples.
Oliver> This is because of the implied term in the author's licence
Oliver> (GPL with implied modifications) that it is OK to do so.
I see. Well, microsoft really don't mean people not to pirate
their software, since they make no provisions to ensure no such
copying is taking place. So there must exist an implied license that
makes it OK to freely copy all microsoft products. I mean, if they
really did not mean you to copy them, would they not require a
secret, unique certificate?
Bah. Implied licenses are, IMHO, bordering on illegal theft.
Oliver> But we follow the real licence, not the one that you insist
Oliver> on; any author who really meant what you try to make them
Oliver> mean would need to be committed to an asylum!
So KDE people are mad; you say. that is hardly
reassuring. (Note: I do not agree with Oliver here. I do not think
KDE people are mad or incompetent, as Oliver is implying). I think
the published license speaks for itself. If they wanted a different
license, they could have granted one. Until they do, we shall do them
the courtesy of trusting their published license, and not second
guess them.
Anyway, I think Raul has come up with a solution; (assuming it
is permissible to tack such riders on to the GPL, I trust that people
who know the law better than I have been consulted and have given
their blessing to the process), so we may deem this discussion over,
for the moment.
manoj
ps: what about other GPLed software in contrib?
--
"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting
cancer in the cigarettes?" the elder Steptoe, c. 1970
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: