Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
- To: Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net>
- Cc: kde-licensing@alpha.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, Rusty.Russell@rustcorp.com.au, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, ettrich@troll.no, rms@gnu.org
- Subject: Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
- From: Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:00:45 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19981218100045.Q2753@rdm.legislate.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net>, kde-licensing@alpha.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, Rusty.Russell@rustcorp.com.au, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, ettrich@troll.no, rms@gnu.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 367A659C.3792F5EE@usa.net>; from Kevin Forge on Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 09:24:28AM -0500
- References: <[🔎] 19981218054130.A16906@debian.org> <[🔎] 367A659C.3792F5EE@usa.net>
Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net> wrote:
> Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
It is if KDE remains under the GPL -- otherwise, no.
> Or would a "simple" GPL-and-link to-QT License alteration sofice ?
Huh?
> I ask because the only item of concern for KDe are those few apps
> which have some GPLed code from other developers built in. ( KFloppy
> comes to mind ).
> Can someone compile a listing of those authors for so they can all be
> asked to allow such a provision ?
I started to, last summer. I gave up after getting a few dozen authors,
and I ran out of time for that kind of research. Someone else in Debian
was going to continue the work of compiling the names, but I forget who
it was...
> I personally can't see why any would refuse. Those who did would
> likely be a small minority with a limited amount of code. I.e.
> Somebody could rewrite those sections.
They might want to hold off until Qt is available under the new license
[and/or until the license stops changing]. But, yeah, the license drafts
have seemed, to me, to be fairly reasonable.
--
Raul
Reply to: