Re: Debian i386 freeze

[john@dhh.gt.org]

manoj writes:
> What about Troll? Since the problem seems to be that we
> *distribute* KDE under a pure GPL, which gives rights to modify the
> QT header files, Troll could sue us.

It is KDE that is granting a license to modify the QT header files (if
indeed such a license is being granted).  The GPL requires that the Debian
maintainer grant a GPL license for his code, and grants a GPL license *from
the original author* for the original code to the recipient.  Since the QT
headers were included by the KDE authors, they are the ones granting any
putative license to modify them.

> I don't have the moeny to take them to court or be taken to court.

You won't have to.  Their lawyer will tell them how pitiful their case is,
and that they could end up paying your legal expenses.  In fact, since the
KDE authors do not sell KDE, they could not claim any monetary damages: all
they could do is demand that you cease distribution.  It would cost nothing
to comply.

> Why should we be put in the position of violating licenses?

A license, even a well drafted one like the GPL, is not a mathematical
theorem (it isn't a legal statute, either).  Whether or not you are liable
for damages for violating a license is determined by nebulous concepts such
as "good faith" and "prudence".  If you are going to be paranoid about
licenses, I think you can find bigger worries among Debian's packages than
this KDE-QT thing.  Maybe you should demand that every upstream author and
his employer grant SPI an unconditional nonexclusive license?

Personally, I could care less about KDE, since it is non-free.  I just hate
to see Debian get all twisted up over what is, IMHO, a groundless fear of
lawsuits over licenses.  The most you have to fear is a letter from a
lawyer demanding that you cease distributing a particular work.

> I am not even going to go into the ethics of distributing code in
> violation of applicable licenses.

A license is just a set of rules written down somewhere.  I don't see how
"violating" such rules is unethical unless it harms someone, or at least
goes against their wishes.  DJB clearly does not want Debian to distribute
a modified version of qmail, and so it would be unethical to do so.  On the
other hand, it is clear that the KDE authors want their code distributed,
and it is clear that Troll Tech wants code that uses QT distributed.  It's
too bad the KDE authors can't get their act together, but I see no ethical
issue.

I think Debian should comply with licenses when they are clear, and either
get clarification or dump the package when they aren't.  I also think that,
in the absence of a legal department, common sense should prevail over
paranoia.

I, of course, Am Not A Lawyer.  I sure as hell wish someone who is would
speak up.
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org		   Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org