Re: Status of KDE/Qt - interim decision

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> > > > btw, i'm not a "KDE supporter". in fact, i'm quite anti-KDE because
> > > > of their attitude to licenses and so on. however, i don't like to be
> > > > hypocritical - if other packages which depend on non-free things can go
> > > > in contrib, then so can KDE.
> > >
> > > The problem is that by the legal wording of the GPL we cannot distribute
> > > _both_ kde and qt.  Having both on the ftp site is classified as a
> > > distribution by the GPL.
> > 
> > Are you sure? I think it is okay to have the KDE sources on the ftp site.
> 
> You are correct.  It's the KDE binaries (i.e. ".deb" packages) that cause
> the problem.

While I agree that the GPL probably prohibits the distribution of the 
binaries, I don't think that is the reason that we should remove the binaries 
(since the KDE folks are not going to sue anyone, because they actually want 
their software to be used by the Freeware community).

My reasoning for removal of the KDE binaries (as they currently exist) is as 
follows:

  The GPL is one of the cornerstones of the Freeware movement, and as such I
  think it is Debian's responsibility (as standard bearers of the Freeware
  movement) to ensure that the GPL does not become devalued by misuse.

  KDE's authors, while clearly supporters of Freeware, are not advocates of
  the fairly extreme branch of the Freeware community, who's beliefs are 
  encapsulated in the GPL.

  As such, their use of the GPL is a mistake, and they should either choose 
  another licence, or add a clause to their own, allowing for their software 
  to be distributed once linked against Qt.

Since some of the KDE people seem not to be open to gentle persuasion on this
issue (they say it doesn't matter), we need to consider what sanctions are
available to us in order to encourage them to do the right thing.

The only one we have, as far as I can see, is ceasing distribution of their
software, until such time as they start using proper licences.

I don't care if we could ``legally'' get away with distributing their software, 
because that's not the basis on which I'm justifying removing it from our 
archives.

The same goes for other software with broken licences.  If gentle persuasion 
doesn't work, we should cease distribution, until the author fixes the licence.

After all, the licences are the distinguishing feature between software that 
we accept or reject into the main distribution, so we should (and generally
do) take this issue seriously.

Cheers, Phil.