[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KDE in hamm is a mess

On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> >I don't think we can distribute kde with Gordon Matzigkeit's permission.
> oh, there is no problem with libtool (written by gordon matzigkeit),
> as it is used for building applications, and not linked with qt or kde.
> you can even use libtool for a proprietary software.
> >   The kde WWW Page has a statement, that all files are licenced under gpl.
> >   But this package has not copyright notes or licences in all files, or in
> >   global location, so the situation is unclear.
> >
> >And, in examining the copyright files I find a number of contradictions to
> >the statement on the web page:  I've found at least a dozen other kinds
> >of copyrights besides the GPL.
> kde people never bothered with the licence stuff. after asking for licences
> againa dn again and again, they put that disclaimer on the web page. everyone
> still asking was responded "i don't see your propbelm. we have that disclaimer
> on the web page.".

kde people are too casual about the license stuff: I do'nt trust them
anymore about that. I'm doing a deepened research in the sources of the kde
packages, and I'm finding a lot of problems. There are even files GPL
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundantion!!!!(see kdecore/libintl.cpp in
the kdelibs package) (I've already contacted rms about this problem).
This is a very very very serious question, because rms has been always very 
clear about the linking with proprietary software 

> of course thet disclaimer only affects the files by the kde team, not the
> imported source code (that has licences, different licences).
> >That, combined with the above statement
> >from kde's copyright file makes me suspect that a lot of software is 
> >being distributed here without the permission of its authors.

This is my suspect, too: I did'nt find any reference to such permissions
from the original authors (whith some exceptions).

> it was some sort of this :
> me> you wrote the kde program xxx. is this stuff under gpl ?
> kde author> what's a gpl ? ug, i think so ?
> me> then please add that header to all your source files.
> kde author> uh, that's work, isn't it ? hey, we have that disclaimer on our
> 	web page, that should be enough.
> me> oh, the license should be inside the package, best would be a header in
> 	every file.
> kde author> ok, i will copy the COPYING file into tha package, that has to be
> 	enough.
> me> oh, but copying a licene into the package doesn't say that you are useing
> 	it... maybe you can add this header to every file *.c/*.h file ?
> kde author> too every file ? that's silly.
> me> maybe at least one sentence in the readme ?
> kde author> *urgs* ok. done.
> ...
> of course, these were the good kde author. many simply did not reply at all.
> but there are also several good people in kde, who read the GPL, and added the
> normal 10 line header to every file. and i think this was done for several
> other file, too. maybe someone want's to check the current situation ?
> yes, this means : look at every single file in the kde source tree !

I did (partially), and I found a lot of GPL software from non-kde people;
kdvi of kpathsea (GPL), krn is linked to libgdbm (GPL),
kghostview use code from ghostview (GPL),  kmidi use code of timidity,
kscdmagic is based on synaesthesia v1.3.

Frankly, I think that we must remove KDE (in hamm and slink) until the kde
packages are, from this point of view, sane packages.

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

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

Reply to: