Re: Double Standard?
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> 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.
My cynicism just kicked in again :-) So I am now doing a wee bit of
I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have any additional
clauses at all. I looked. I didn't find any.
Of course, I'm not currently running Debian at work, so I don't have any
means to extract licenses out of deb files, so I went to the licq
homepage and downloaded the current source. There exists the small by
finite possibility that the version of licq that Debian is distributing
has a disclaimer while the official and current licq does not. But I
So my question is this... Does Debian simply not like KDE, and
selectively targets it with legal pronouncements and banishment? Or was
someone sloppy by including licq? Is there a double standard? WTF?