Re: KDE not in Debian?
- To: Andreas Pour <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: KDE not in Debian?
- From: David Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:01:02 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 38922DBE.F1C97E7B@acuson.com>
- References: <38875DCC.1EE967CD@acuson.com> <20000120133959.A20281@physics.arizona.edu> <388777CC.B1C3407@acuson.com> <20000120153737.A25628@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> <388791E1.2391A671@acuson.com> <20000121132435.D725@taz.net.au> <3887CA33.3BDC2204@acuson.com> <20000120212632.B19649@debian.org> <388F227D.CF6E9596@mieterra.com> <388F4767.FD7BE784@acuson.com> <20000127225206.B6305@server1> <38914CA8.FBE63709@mieterra.com>
Andreas Pour wrote:
> Errh, I keep hearing this misconception that BSD code can be relicensed as GPL
> code, but can not figure out where it comes from. How can you re-license BSD
> *source code* as GPL code?
I took me a while to read and digest your analysis of the GPL. I have to
say that it was very good. I am not a lawyer, and hopefully never will
be. I found this analysis quite informing.
> Regardless of how you interpret Section 2(b), it is a fact that Qt code is not
> mixed with KDE code. Qt, as a library, can be "considered [an] independent and
> separate work in [itself]", and in fact Qt source code is distributed separately
> from the KDE source code, so pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 2 whatever
> provisions of the GPL you think Section 2(b) makes applicable to the Qt code, the
> last part of Section 2 excuses from those provisions. The KDE source code is not
> derivative of the Qt source code.
I have to correct a small error here. Qt is indeed distributed with KDE
from ftp.kde.org in the same directory. However, lest anyone think this
a victory over the scofflaw KDE developers, note well that the full Qt
sources are also distributed with the KDE sources in the same place.
> > > Although I disagree with RMS on a wide range of
> > > topics, he is the model of decorum and good manners on the mailing
> > > lists, and sets a proper example of net behavior.
> > As long as we're all slamming on each other here, and calling each
> > other "moronic idiots", and "outrageous", and slurring on each other's
> > manners...
> Errh, just for clarification, I was not calling anyone a moronic idiot :-).
And I don't believe I was slamming RMS by praising his exemplary