Re: (Fwd) Re: [email@example.com: Re: Isn't a kde version of abiw
Montreal Fri May 28 13:27:45 1999
Ivan E. Moore II <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:53:42AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > Btw, neither Caldera, RedHat, SuSE, Corel, Mandrake, Slackware,...
> > seem to think there's much of a problem. Any idea why that would be?
> > Are their lawyers any different from Debian lawyers?
> RedHat did at one point in time pull it...or planned on it. They even
> had a page up on their site about the issues with the qt license. They
> may have just come to the conclusion that no one will go after them (which
> is probably 100% true). Debian just lives by the CYA policy. :)
AFAIK, Red Hat was not distributing KDE for the simple reason that Qt1
was not free (libre). Ostensibly, they are now distributing it
because Qt2 is libre, even though Qt1 still isn't.
Debian is not distributing KDE for an entirely different reason...
which I'm sure you well know. I don't believe Red Hat or other
distributors have ever voiced an opinion on this particular issue.
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
< http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >