Re: Re^2: Should we ship KDE in hamm?

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Fulgham, Brent/SCO <BFulgham@CH2M.com> wrote:
> > The source is free software.
> >
> > The compiled binaries linked against Qt is not free software.
>
> This may just be semantics, but isn't the software "free" if it only
> links against the Qt libraries? We wouldn't be distributing anything
> non-free -- users would have to obtain their own Qt libraries if they
> wanted to use Qt...

If we didn't have to use Qt in the build process, if we didn't bother
telling people that they have to use Qt for it to work, if we didn't
distribute Qt...  Yeah, I think that would be legal.

But why bother distributing broken software?

We've already tossed things out of Main which work better than what
you're hypothesizing would.

Also, there appears to be more non-free software involved than just Qt
(mimesupport looks like it's non-free).

-- 
Raul


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