Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for
> > > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has
> > > no legal problems.
> >
> > Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems...
>
> Legally, no, no problems.
>
>
> > > Will it make it into Debian? Not unless:
> > >
> > > * someone wishes to package it
> > > * explicit permission is given
> >
> > Here you imply it does...
>
> I don't. I say flat out that it is Debian's policy
> that author's
> intent is not sufficient.
The way I'm reading what you wrote is like so:
- Troll Tech releasing GPLed code that links to Qt is legal
(because implicit permission is granted).
- But it's against Debian policy to accept the license if it's
not made explicit.
Is that a correct summary?
If so, I disagree. If point 1 was true, Debian wouldn't have
grounds for point 2. I'm assuming point 1 is wrong where you don't.
In a post to kde-licensing last night, you said:
: Nobody here is going to question Red Hat should they include Qt Designer.
: There is clearly and obviously no problem with doing so. Debian has a
: policy problem with it though.
You are effectively telling the world that implicit permission is
fine and legal, but that we have some ungrounded (one could say
random) policy against it. I disagree. Either we think it's
legal or it isn't.
Peter
Reply to: