Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Jan 31, Andreas Pour wrote:
[Pages of discussion about the BSD license clipped]
> Well, if you really mean that, I put it to you that it would be a
> lot easier (given the problems I noted above about changing the KDE
> license) for Debian to distribute KDE-2.x as is than it would be for
> KDE to get all the consents you request. So if respect is a two-way
> street, why should not the side with the much easier task of showing
> respect be the one to do it? Perhaps b/c Debian developers do not
> respect KDE developers' views?
As far as we can tell, the KDE developers have expressed their view:
the software is licensed under the GPL, and as such cannot be linked
against software with a more restrictive license.
The bottom line is that Debian won't distribute KDE without clear,
explicit permission from the authors to link their code (which they
have licensed as GPLed without any exceptions) against Qt. Debian has
expected a clear license from everyone else whose software has been
included, and I can't see where KDE is different.
Now either (a) the KDE group can add the exception (and be willing to
remove/rewrite code contributed by people who don't agree to the
exception) or (b) Troll can make the QPL "GPL-compatible" (see Joseph
Carter's earlier attempts at this which can be compared to talking to
brick walls). Or (c) you can finish Harmony, and we can solve this
problem once and for all (by telling Troll and the QPL to bugger off).
Sorry to sound petty, but that's how it's going to be. You can argue
until you're blue in the face, you can say "so and so distributes KDE
so there must be demand", you can say "we won't sue", etc. None of it
matters; all that matters is the license. And the license says we
can't link KDE apps against Qt (1 or 2).
| Chris Lawrence | It's 2/3 of a beltway... |
| <email@example.com> | http://www.lordsutch.com/tn385/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: |
| University of Mississippi | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> |