Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In the third case, the distinction between dynamic and static linking
> >> is irrelevant.
Raul Miller wrote:
> >It's always irrelevant. The GPL makes no mention of static vs. dynamic
> >linking. Whatever is true for dynamic linking is therefore true for
> >static linking.
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
> No!
>
> If you are looking at a legal document, you MUST look at what it
> actually says. Since the GPL does not mention static versus dynamic
> linking, one must see what it actually does say, which I analysed two
> or three posts back. You have ignored this.
Dynamic linking is like static linking in that in either case the program
won't run without the library. Dynamic linking is unlike static linking
in that the linkage is created every time the program runs, rather than
every time the prgram is linked. Also, we generally do not make it a
practice of shipping unlinked .o files, arranging to statically link
them in the user's machine.
That's about the extent of the technological differences..
What you're ignoring is that we introduce a very strong association
between the binaries and the libraries, using dpkg. This, in
combination with some of the other associations (our testing process,
the documentation on the program, and of course the way we build the
package in the first place) make it very obvious that we intended that
qt be used to make kde work.
> >> But, as I pointed out, clause 2 only applies to modifications; we do not
> >> modify KDE in any way.
> >
> >That's not true, when uncompressed the diffs against kdebase are about
> >160k.
>
> The point was, that the KDE Debian maintainer is part of the KDE team and
> the KDE debs are those published by KDE. WE, Debian, do not alter them.
Hmm.. that's an interesting point. It is not sufficient for DFSG,
but it is still an interesting point.
Then again, the point is somewhat flawed. The licenses don't mention KDE,
and there's not a really good way of determining who was a part of KDE
and who wasn't. [Which leads us back to stuff like kmidi, where it's
clear that the original authors did not take part in modifying to work
with Qt -- and yes, I'm aware you're trying to address a different point,
but this is related to the original problem: without a valid license
you just plain don't know what's going on.]
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: