Re: Corel Setup Design Proposal
- To: Dave Neil <davidne@corel.CA>
- Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Corel Setup Design Proposal
- From: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>
- Date: 06 May 1999 17:38:36 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87k8ul7uar.fsf@pfaffben.user.msu.edu>
- Reply-to: pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu
- In-reply-to: Dave Neil's message of "Thu, 06 May 1999 17:51:22 -0400"
- References: <3731BB4E.BDB5CD95@corel.com> <19990506171657.J22415@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> <19990506104426.A24448@velocity> <19990506175216.M22415@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> <3731CA85.431DBF4A@corel.com> <19990506192431.A30802@molec3.dfis.ull.es> <3731F717.D7F299C8@corel.com> <87lnf26jjd.fsf@pfaffben.user.msu.edu> <37320EDA.75129A0A@corel.com>
[Note: I am moving this to debian-legal, where it belongs.]
Dave Neil <davidne@corel.CA> writes:
> At this point I'm going to reiterate my concern about linking Qt to
> the GPL'd boot floppies code. Don't do it, it's a violation of
> license as far as I can tell.
>
Bottom line is that Debian has publicly supported QT2's license. If not then how
about clearing this issue up publicly, have you or not?
The conclusion that we came to, I believe, is that Qt 2.0 is DFSG-free
(Open Source). That doesn't mean that it's GPL compatible (it's not,
IIRC)), which is a separate issue.
Please read the debian-legal archives for more information. You can
find them at
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/
The most relevant months are Nov and Dec 1998. There may also be some
relevant messages in the debian-devel archive.
I am not trying to say that Qt is a bad library or that its licensing
is bad in some way, BTW. But its license is not compatible with the
GPL.
--
"It takes a certain amount of shamelessness
to be a monomaniac billionaire dwarf."
--Jon Katz <URL:http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/17/1634238.shtml>
Reply to: