On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > In these cases where there are grey areas, I wouldn't really trust our > > opinions to be all that valid. Just as we might not trust a lawyer's > > advice on how to implement a technical issue, maybe we should consider > > having a lawyer looking at something that falls under their area of > > expertise before we go off half-cocked. > > Quite right. I believe this step has already been taken. You wish. => RMS has commented on the opinions of the FSF lawyer(s), but that's the extent anyone has really looked into the matter other than individual dists asking their lawyers "will distributing this get us sued?" To which those lawyers reply (guessing), "Probably not. If they do we'll probably have to dump the curent shipment of CDs and make more that don't have any of this on them." To which the person asking probably replied, "Oh, okay. We make releases often enough anyway, so that's probably not a problem." Debian isn't a company and we don't distribute our CDs. We don't have a lawyer to ask about these things whom we can hold accountable for legal advice. We err on the side of caution in these cases. (Besides, when was the last time Debian made a target release date? *g*) Please note I am not generally dealing with this issue on the mailing lists anymore. There have been a few points raised, but in large this discussion is mostly being discussed among the wrong people, making it rather difficult to get anywhere particularly beneficial. As a result, I'm more or less leaving this thread (have already left it for the most part..) I think KDE's licensing list isn't working because several people who tell me they're on it haven't seen this thread. The issues need to be raised with KDE directly. And the people who really need to be raising them are the people whose GPL'd code is used without their prior condition. As for the KDE-native GPL'd code... *shrug* -- Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Debian Linux developer http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43 http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 <Oryn> anyone know if there is a version of dpkg for redhat?
Description: PGP signature