Re: Can we pull KDE?
On Tue, Sep 08, 1998 at 06:42:18PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > David Welton writes:
> > > Communicating with them seems like a first step.
> >
> > I wrote:
> > > Seems to me that the first step is getting a legal opinion from a real
> > > lawyer. Is there any possibility at all of doing so?
> >
> > Phil writes:
> > > Why ?
> >
> > So that we will have a solid basis for a decision and an unquestionable
> > response to the inevitable flames and accusations. We presently have at
> > least three conflicting 'legal' opinions from at least three different
> > non-lawyers. Don't you think it would be a good idea to resolve this with
> > an opinion from someone who actually knows the law?
>
> That's why I was saying that legal opinion is irrelevant.
>
> You're going to need a lawyer who is a specialist in software and IP law to
> get a useful opinion on this, and even then it will probably only be relevant
> to one jurisdiction.
>
> To approach this question from a different angle:
>
> Does anyone here applaud what KDE have done w.r.t. licensing ?
>
> I would assume that anyone that has actually examined the GPL would find
> their use of it somewhere between misguided and reprehensible.
I personally don't....
I just see it as some programmers wanted to write their suit of
programs, and decided to use a library which was non-free because
it met their needs the best. They chose the GPL as a licence for
their code because they wanted their software to be free....
I don't see that as reprehensible...
> There are plenty of other licenses, which would serve their purpose, but they
> don't think licenses are important (they are pretty blase' about the licensing
> of other people's code too, which really is reprehensible)
Well I don't really tend to think licences are that terribly important
either. (hence I am becoming fond of a licence someone I know used...
the "I don't Care Licence"). They are programmers, not lawyers.
> I see it as our duty to educate them, and talking does not seem to be having
> the desired effect, so the only other sanction we have is to stop carrying
> their packages.
>
> Hopefully this will result in them fixing their ways, so everyone can live
> happily ever after.
>
> The alternative, is to have this argument simmer forever (there are some here,
> myself included, who think this is important enough not to drop it).
>
> Those who seem to think that licenses are not important, make me wonder why
> they are involved with Debian in the first place.
>
> The DFSG is what defines Debian after all, and it is all about licenses.
Well I supose in that view you may be right. I personally am involved with
Debian for other reasons. I use Debian because it is the BEST distribution
I have found of my "Favorite OS". I became involved with debian because
I want to help give back and make it better.
If debian used and distributed non-free software, I would still be here because
"free software" isn't the core of my personal agenda.
personally I think KDE is intended to be free software and IS free software
if you go past the nit picking wording and stict definitions and
look at the intent and the spirit in which it is distributed.
Oh well...time to start filtering out this discussion like I was a few
weeks ago.... till the next time it flares up...
-Steve
--
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <sjc@delphi.com> --- <sjc@debian.org>------------ */
E-mail "Bumper Stickers":
"A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!"
"honk if you Love Linux"
Reply to: