On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 10:24:20AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > In the case of KDE, this is not what the authors want, therefore they > have a right to change their license. There may be pitfalls in doing so > (they can't just borrow GPL code at will anymore) but they can't do that They never could. The situation is no different with QPL or before. Each and every bit of GPL code requires specific exceptions. > If that's not good enough and given that it's the only option, I must > concolde that NOTHING AT ALL that can be done will satisfy you, in which > case this discussion is at best pointless. You've missed Francesco's point completely. If you have to change the license for every bit of GPL code, that's a never-ending task. The correct solution is to fix the KDE/QT license. > Let's see... They wrote a license, it was non-free. I re-wrote the > license and it was free. Gee, talk about insignificant contributions! Is the term "FIGJAM" an Australianism? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Attachment:
pgpSgY9bjAxry.pgp
Description: PGP signature