Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> wrote:
> The GPL has a "feature" that with the exception of essential system type
> libraries (which is IMO far too vague to be terribly useful) any work
> derived from the GPL must also be under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really what it says, which is probably why you think it
is vague.
> Not necessarily GPL, but the same terms.
This, however, is pretty accurate...
[skipping down]
> FWIW, I'm not certain still if that "feature" in the GPL is good or
> not. It was put there with good intentions, but it's clear there's a
> reason the GPL is the only license that requires these hoops be jumped
> through.
If the hoop had been jumped through, we'd be seeing development
snapshots of Qt which take advantage of enlightenment's various
features. Instead that development effort is going into Gnome.
That Gnome and KDE are two separate projects is complete a result
of this licensing issue.
That the GNU folks haven't pursued legal action is an indication of
the good nature of those folks and does not indicate that they lack the
legal right to such action.
> The whole thread is proof what a mess this whole thing is. I'm glad at
> least Stephan will continue to make debian packages, but that's not the way
> I wanted this to end.
It's not over yet.
[Though the tendancy that Matthias has -- to resort to ad hominem, and
claim he "doesn't have time" when he can't address the issues through
reason -- does kind of stall things.]
--
Raul
Reply to: