Re: Leadership, effects on Debian and open source community
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Or maybe you expect that people will "just know" that, if they happen
> > to mention a popular piece of software, that they've legally obligated
> > themselves to present a formal announcement?
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> We expect people to read the license. I don't feel we have any obligation to
> make it clearer for them.
We do? Then why bother separating out contrib?
Looking at a debian machine, I see 2 MB of copyright text, spread out
over 900 files. You claim that you've read all the copyrights on the
software on your machine? You claim that we expect this of all our users?
[Or, at least, of all people who associate with someone who distributes
> It's not aloowed to link a GPL'd peice of code with qt, but we don't
> have a document explaining what you can and cannot do with GPL'd code
> in debian. We expect people to read the licenses, and if they don't,
> it's not our fault. Seems to me complience with the advertising clause
> is in the same boat.
No, advertising clause affects verbatim distribution of main. Qt isn't
even *in* main.