Re: KDE in hamm - let's have a vote
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> Breaking the law is not a matter of voting. If we do not have
> the right to distribute the binaries, we should not be. And I think
> without the rider Raul proposed, we can't distribute them.
So now we've been explicitly granted permission by one of the core developers
to distribute KDE. If he has the authority to do so that would definitely
qualify to put it in non-free at the very least. Arguably contrib. And
arguably it doesn't particularly matter if we make a mistake between contrib
and non-free since neither is on the official images.
So the remaining questions are:
How does authority to change licensing issues work in a "team" of free
software programmers? I'm willing to assume accepting the word of a single
developer is a good faith effort to comply.
Is there any other GPL'd software incorporated in KDE packages that the KDE
developers don't own the rights to. Raul's comments sound bad, but I don't
know which packages that code was in, or how much code is involved. Nor do I
particularly feel like checking.
In the past we've dealt with such problems by filing bugs, and having the
package maintainer resolve the problems. I don't think the packages were
removed in the mean-time, except if the problems didn't seem likely to be
resolved. I suggest we be consistent and do the same here.
This is a little more pressing because of the release but not much more,
unless we're planning on making images containing contrib or non-free.
(Which seems odd to me, since distributors really ought to only include
selected packages from those sections.)
greg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: