Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:10:57 -0500 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> It's not inconvenience that's relevant.
>
> What's relevant is what the distributor intended to distribute, and what
> decisions are available to the end user.
>
> If the distributor intends to distribute a working copy of kghostview and
> the end user has only one option -- which involves libqt -- in receiving
> that working copy, in that case there's not much of a legal question
> about what's going on.
Do you mean that distributing sources of kghostview, not for the purpose of
literary enjoyment of reading the sources, and in practical absence of any
alternatives for libqt, would be equally illegal as distributing binaries,
even without automated building of exectables?
Marc van Leeuwen
Reply to: