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

Re: (Fwd) Re: [awansink@ke.com.au: Re: Isn't a kde version of abiw

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:

> Debian-legal to developers: "If we include that package there is a small
> risk that we will be forced to remove it from the archive.  We don't think
> we would have to pay any damages."
> Developers: "What about "Cheap Bytes et al?"
> Debian-legal: "They might have to destroy their CD's."
> Developers: "What!  Pull that package!  We can't afford to have them even
> suspect that such a thing could happen!  And what do you mean, you don't
> *think* we would have to pay damages?  Pull that package!

Um.. no... it's more like:

developers to debian-legal: "Is the GPL compatible with QT?  I.e., is
it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?"

Debian-legal to developers: "Not that we can see.  QT and GPL are

As you can see, we are simply asking different questions.  Not about
our legal liabilities only, but mostly about wether we comply with the
letter of the software licenses.

I consider it a rather unfortunate side effect of the GPL that it is
so restrictive of what can link with it.  Ideally, for GPL v3, any
code which is DFSG free could be linked with GPL code.  Currently this
is not the case.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: