RE: Re^2: Should we ship KDE in hamm?
[ snip Oliver's analysis ]
I agree with Oliver's assessment. I don't think that it is correct to
say that Debian is violating the KDE license by distributing KDE without
the Qt library. We can view this from two angles:
1) The authors of KDE clearly meant their work to be dynamically linked
to the non-free Qt library. The KDE package cannot be used without the
Qt library (unless they have finished the Harmony project). Their
intent, as stated by the developers themselves, has been to create a GPL
"free" software package. If it is not meaningful to classify a work of
software as GPL'd if it links to a non-free library, then the copyright
statement they hold is unenforcable.
2) RMS's position notwithstanding, I do not see how it is possible to
demand that a software package be defined as the executable code, the
source code, and EVERY library to which it links (dynamically). I am
perfectly within my rights to create a "free" software package designed
to be used in conjunction with a non-free proprietary software package.
Are we saying that KDE just can't be GPL, but it CAN be Debian-Free?
What about creating a Java program that is derived from the (non-free)
Sun Java Base Classes? By this logic, no Java program can ever be free,
since they all inherit from the Object Class. As soon as someone tries
to run my Java program on a Sun JDK (instead of Kaffe or something) they
violate the GPL.
-Brent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: