On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 01:16:39PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de wrote: > > It is too early for that. Qt 2.0 is not treleased. However, as soon as it is, > > KDE and Qt may enter the main distribution (if a careful investgation > > of the license shows no problems). > > I think we should investigate the license now. If it's DFSG free, we should > put out a press release stating that Qt 2.0 and KDE will go into debian > again. > > I wonder if our recent drop of KDE precipited this change in the license at > all? Well, see, the problem is that KDE isn't merely DFSG free, it's GPL. If the Qt license is DFSG free, that doesn't make it GPL compatible (think BSD with advertising clause.. That's DFSG free but not GPL compatible either..) Your above request for James (good choice I suspect) to evaluate the license isn't quite complete.. There are 3 possible results: 1. The QPL is DFSG free and GPL compatible. 2. The QPL is DFSG free but NOT GPL compatible. 3. The QPL is not DFSG free. If 2, the question the becomes: Is the GPL's "distributed as a normal part of the operating system" clause enough to allow GPL code to like the DFSG free but not quite GPL compatible QPL licensed Qt? I really _REALLY_ do not want to resort to answering that question. If at all possible I would much prefer that we figure out what the problems are with GPL compatibility and ask Troll Tech to address these issues. Seems section 3 may be one of those issues IMO at least. In that particular case, if we go and ask them to soften it for GPL compatibility, we really need to come up with an alternative solution that will still give them reasonable control over what makes an official version of Qt if at all possible. It's one thing to say "you might have a problem" and another entirely to say "you might have a problem, but I think I might have a solution if you're interested".. We should do this right or not at all, that's why we're here isn't it? -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Description: PGP signature