Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
suitable application of weasel words. From the vast (or is it half-vast?)
amount of discussion on this point, I'm guessing that the GPL is the
violated one, so thus is the more restrictive in that circumstance. I'm
going to go out on the limb and be a Devil's Advocate here: since two
alleged "open source" licenses meet and the result is undistributable,
would it not be logical to think of the offending license as the non-free?
Since the GPL is the offending license, if any works go into non-free
shouldn't it be the GPL'd works? And consequently, would it still be
right to call it Debian GNU/Linux if all things GNUish were in non-free,
and the Constitution clearly states that non-free is tolerated, but not
official? Since the free as in free speech metaphor is trumpeted around
through hell and high water, let me add my own little rider in there:
Freedom of speech lies not in saying what you want, freedom of speech lies
in allowing others to say what they want.
BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into
/usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > 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).
> >
>
> It's actually more than that.
>
> The process of building KDE involves the evaluation of various preprocessor
> macros that copy sections of QT code into the stream fed to the compiler.
> The resulting binaries are still derived from both KDE and QT code even if
> dynamically linked and thus can only be distributed if you satisfy both
> the GPL and the QPL concurrently.
>
> (Note that the GPL and QPL contain incompatible terms that prevent the
> concurrent satisfaction of both.)
>
> --
> Brian Ristuccia
> brian@ristuccia.com
> bristucc@cs.uml.edu
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: