Re: Status of KDE/Qt - interim decision
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > btw, i'm not a "KDE supporter". in fact, i'm quite anti-KDE because
> > of their attitude to licenses and so on. however, i don't like to be
> > hypocritical - if other packages which depend on non-free things can
> > go in contrib, then so can KDE.
>
> You are missing the point here IMHO.
no, i'm not missing the point. in fact, i made exactly the same points
as you did (although in a less inflammatory manner).
In short: if the KDE license situation is cleared up, and if the
licenses of all GPL apps which have been ported to KDE are also cleared
up then there is no reason not to have KDE in contrib.
> The problem is not the dependence upon non-free things (otherwise we
> would just dump contrib)
why dump contrib? it's a good place to put stuff which is useful but
doesn't quite meet the criteria for inclusion in debian main.
> The problem is their abuse of the GPL, the corollary of which is that
> they are not licensing redistribution of their code, when linked
> against Qt.
>
> There is also a secondary problem, which is that they are using
> the fact that they are claiming to be GPL programmers (which is a
> falsehood) to dupe real GPL programmers into letting them use their
> code.
i am aware of these issues. i choose to think of them as the result of
ignorance (wilful ignorance in fact...they vehemently do NOT want to
know) on the part of the KDE developers rather than a malicious attempt
to subvert the GPL.
> I for one would not want my GPL code used in conjunction with Qt, but
> if the question were presented as ``Is it OK for us to use your GPL
> code, in our GPL program'' and I was not aware of the details, I'd
> probably say ``Yes, of course, that's what the GPL is all about''.
> This is a Bad Thing.
Ditto. When i write something, i release it as GPL because I believe
that the GPL is a Good Thing - it protects my interests as an author and
it protects the interests of the users.
> As it stands, I think we should use the only sanction available to us,
> and show our displeasure at their licence abuse, by removing the KDE
> packages from our archives. I don't want to do so if a new version is
> just about to appear with proper licences, but we need to put a time
> limit on this.
fine. i agree. remove KDE from the archives until the license situation
is clarified....but remember to let it back into contrib when it meets
the criteria for inclusion in contrib.
craig
PS: i'm not even sure why i'm arguing for KDE. I don't even like it. I
certainly don't use it. it has a bad license and is clumsy to use...i
have no use for it at all. if i wanted a simplistic point-and-drool
interface then i'd use windows.
however, i think the KDE people generally mean well (ignoring one or two
hotheads). they do write code and release it under the GPL (they just
have a problem *understanding* the GPL). their biggest "crime" is their
wilful and deliberate ignorance of the license issues.
maybe one day they will get a clue and understand that the license issue
really is important.
--
craig sanders
Reply to: