Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:06:29PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> So the GPL (or QT) license does not "contaminate" until someone actively
> makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs.
> But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special
> exception) they can (and Debian will) distribute them.
> (Note that Debian distributes libqt2.)
Right - But not KDE - As this would contaminate the libqt2 in my
understanding of Par. 9 - The problem already stated in another
mail the problem i had/have with Par.9 is that it doesnt contain
a specification/definition under which relations a contamination
would be legal/illegal. I can accept the QT2/GPL fact without
a problem but is is NOT a combined program - I see it as
KDE including parts of QT2 and therefor requiring those parts
of the QT2 to be under the GPL (symbol names, api definition etc).
But noone else than the Copyright holder may limit or change
the Distibution/License - Which means we (debian) may not
distribute parts of the QT2 under the GPL which would KDE linked
against QT2 would require.
But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms
in Par.9 - It says "distributed along" which KDE + QT2 would also
be.
IMHO the "distributed along" term does not clear the tightness/intense
of the coupling (As none of the Programs debian distributes is unrelated
to others - The relation COULD be the same medium)
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-subject-2-change
"Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and
more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots."
Reply to: