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

Re: kde and debian a long love story :)

"Darren O. Benham" wrote:

> I think this matter has gone beyond a consensus of debian-legal
> as any sort of authority.

Why?  Perhaps debian-legal consensus has no `authority', but I'm
satisfied with it.  

What has changed since this came up on debian-legal before?  The
only thing is that KDE hasn't changed its license from the GPL
but other distributions have decided to use it anyway.  Debian
now stands alone not using KDE because of licensing issues.  If
this is enough to raise your doubts concerning our stand on the
issue, I think you should feel free to seek such clarification
from RMS.  Best to do that before we spend big bucks with a
lawyer trying to interpret KDE's messy situation.

>                If (and I do say if) we want any sort of official answer..
> we need to consult either a lawyer giving us a legal (ie, we can hold him
> to it officially) opinion or RMS who can atleast speak from an "what he
> intended" point of view.
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 04:24:24PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > "Darren O. Benham" wrote:
> > 
> > > I was under the impression (but a lawyer or RMS or someone know
> > > *knows* should comment) that because the KDE programs are
> > > written in such a way that they were obviously intended to be
> > > linked to Qt.. and Qt is included in the original author's make
> > > file... that KDE created programs are not the problem.
> > 
> > Since we have release-critical bugs against GPL'ed packages that
> > depends on XForms, I don't think consensus on debian-legal would
> > agree.
> > 
> > I argued this with xwatch (links with XForms) and the
> > debian-legal consensus at the time was to seek a license change,
> > which I did.
> > 
> > Peter

Reply to: