[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community

> A> (3) It is widely perceived that these changes are a direct
> A> counterattack on Troll's QPL.  I must say I tend to agree with this
> A> perception.

Martin Bialasinski <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> wrote:
> Yes, the timing is really bad. I was also somewhat stumbed by the
> draft.  

Yet, if Troll Tech is reacting to our analysis of the KDE issue (GPL + Qt
licenses), it's not really our timing that's the issue here, it's theirs.
We're still on the same track we were earlier (we're paying more attention
to copyright issues), and they're reacting to us.  People were noting
the problems with GPL + Qt years ago, and it's not our fault that they
waited until we got around to cleaning our house.

Sure, there is a valid reason for them to clean house: the Qt license and
the GPL licenses conflict.  They should do this regardless of what we do,
because they encourage the use of the GPL in their license, and because
the primary users of their software do use the GPL.  They shouldn't
pretend that they're doing this as a favor to us.

I'm not saying that we should adopt this DFSG draft in its current form.
I have to do quite a bit more thinking on that topic.  But just as they
have every right to choose a license that meets their needs, we have
every right to choose what we distribute based on our needs.

I'm glad that they recognize that our distributing their software would
be a service to them.  But I don't think we should be pressured into
making less than the right decisions.

In other words:  Let's let this DFSG revision stand or fall on its
own merits.


Reply to: