Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)

To: Marc van Leeuwen <maavl@mathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr>
Cc: pour@mieterra.com, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, kde-licensing@kde.org, jeff@luci.org
Subject: Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:48:20 -0800
Message-id: <38972A74.8C9BE074@acuson.com>
References: <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> <20000128022241.A700@debian.org> <m12E99w-003spvC@Young.sp2mi.univ-poitiers.fr> <38919028.E967122B@mieterra.com> <m12Ff7Y-003spvC@Young.sp2mi.univ-poitiers.fr>

Marc van Leeuwen wrote:

> Yet, why has nobody recently put forward this way of resolving the KDE/Qt
> issue? I've seen drastic bending of the meaning of much more unambiguous parts
> of the GPL. Maybe this was discussed and resolved long ago, or maybe I'm just
> too blind too see the obvious? Anybody please explain.

I have put this opinion forth (that Qt is distinct from the application
and not a module) in the past, but each and every time I have met with
immense disagreement and vile language, so that I have become "gun shy"
and have refrained from stating what I see as obvious.

David Johnson

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
  - From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>

References:
- On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
  - From: Marc van Leeuwen <maavl@mathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: KDE not in Debian?
Next by Date: Re: KDE not in Debian?
Previous by thread: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Next by thread: Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread