QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
jim@laney.edu wrote:
>OK, I an reading 6a and 6c of QPL... I'm no lawer (how do you spel that??)
S-o-l-i-c-i-t-o-r, on the whole. While on the net, however, I usually
spell it l-a-w-y-e-r, to try to avoid confusing anyone.
>but it seems that the license overall seems to open the possibility of
>QT modification and redistribution. So, if I had a vote, I'd vote to bring
>KDE and Qt back to debian.
I'd like to see Qt in Debian ASAP after it is released with the new
licence. KDE might need more work on its licence before it, too, could
be included.
>However, it might be the case that 6a makes QT incompatible with DSFG, so
>it would have to be non-free. Also, it would seem that 6a and 6c could
>possibly be in conflict.
6(c) starts by saying "As an alternative to (a) or (b) ..." How could
this be a conflict? You either fulfil both 6(a) and 6(b), or you
fulfil 6(c).
>Any lawers wannna render a real opinion? :)
I don't remember any lawyer posting a professional opinion on the net
before; do you think they're likely to start now? :)
--
Charles Briscoe-Smith
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
Reply to: