Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:22:58PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
[... I try to show why it is obvious that Andreas Pour his explanation
of the issues involved with distributing a combined work from source
distributed under the GPL, BSD and/or QT is wrong. Andreas Pour repeats
some of his assumptions that I think others have already clearly shown
to be false. ...]
> > Could you please contact the FSF or RMS about such licensing issues if
> > you are not sure about them. They have legal advisors that can explain
> > such things to you.
> Please don't be condescending. I don't need anyone to explain it to me.
> > I did when I had questions about combining BSD and GPL code and they
> > explained all the issues to me.
> I have heard all of the arguments, and am not convinced. To date nobody has
> effectively refuted my arguments, however.
> > If something is unclear then they can ask for legal advise which is
> > much better then speculating on some mailinglist.
> I'm not speculating.
> > You can also consult <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>
> > which explains what licenses are free and what licenses are compatible with
> > the GPL. It also explains how to resolve some conflicts for your program
> > when combining distribution terms of licenses not compatible with the GPL
> > (such as the QPL) by adding appropriate notices.
> > Hope that helps,
> No, sorry, I think it doesn't help to use ad hominem attacks, such as saying
> I don't understand, I am speculating, I should ask for advice, etc. Please
> address the arguments, that could help.
Sorry. I should learn to add a few IMHOs here and there. English isn't my
first language (I had to look up what condescending and ad hominem meant)
so please, please excuse me if something is not clear or if I sound like
those difficult words :)
I honestly thought that I was helping you by pointing out where IMHO your
arguments were wrong. But I also noticed you seem not to be convinced by
other people on this mailing list why you are wrong. That is why I urge
you to contact the FSF since they have the most knowledge about these issues
and have the funding to get real legal counsel about these matters.
P.S. Somewhere I wrote:
> > [The FSF explained to me why]
> > For example why GPL code could not be combined
> > with code licensed under the old BSD license which is possible with the
> > current BSD license (the advertise clause is an added restriction
> > which the GPL does not have).
> Right, but it was combined anyway, for many years. And not every BSD code
> author has changed the license -- UC has, I think.
Yes, you are right. So I did ask them that. And they did acknowledge that they
had thought in the past that it was legal for them to distribute it because
the advertise clause is not enforceable and thus should be considered void.
But their legal counsel advised them that it might be enforceable in other
countries then the USA so it should not be considered void.
Please do contact them about any license issues you have or if you think
something on their license-list page is wrong. They are more then happy to
discuss the matters with you or seek legal counsel to make sure the advise
they are giving is correct. Nobody on this mailing list can do that for you.
They can only give their honest opinion.
(But please mail us with their reply if it clears things up.)
> > P.S. Could you please not make your lines longer then 80 characters?
> Sorry, this must be a bug in Netscape, I have it set to wrap at 72 chars.
> Do you have a fix (besides not using Netscape :-) )?
You could try to use an editor that does correctly wrap lines and paste the
result in your Netscape mail reader.