Re: Double Standard?
On Jan 31, David Johnson wrote:
> 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.
Please report these instances as bugs against the packages and
ftp.debian.org; if these are actual violations of the license, it will
be removed (whether part of KDE or not). That may even include
removal from stable in 2.1r5.
As someone else pointed out here, licq does have the QPL exception
clause. For the hell of it, I examined the copyright of every package
in potato I could find that depended on either libqt1g or libqt2
(excluding the trivial cases of the -dev packages).
tuxeyes (qt1): contrib. Has a MIT/X-style license, and thus is Qt ok.
qweb (qt1): contrib. GPLed w/o Qt exception; this appears to be a
violation. I am opening a release critical bug to that effect.
qcad (qt2): main. GPLed with Qt exception.
licq-plugin-qt2 (qt2): main. GPLed with Qt exception.
xexec (qt2): main. GPLed, apparently w/o Qt exception. Bug filed.
qps (qt2): main. GPLed, apparently w/o Qt exception. Bug filed.
xsidplay (qt2): main. GPLed, with Qt severability clause.
xgmod (qt2): main. Minimalistic license, so Qt ok.
regexplorer (qt2): main. Appears to be QPLed itself.
qbrew (qt2): main. MIT/X style license, thus Qt ok.
So, of 10 packages, 7 have the clause (or don't need one, since they
have minimal licenses that don't contradict the Qt ones). The other 3
are likely to be removed very soon.
I may have missed some (I used apt-cache showpkg on the two library
packages; if there is such a thing as a "static Qt", it's possible
other packages include Qt code).
| Chris Lawrence | Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs |
| <email@example.com> | http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: |
| University of Mississippi | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> |