[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:18:45AM -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.

There are many licenses that pass by -legal which essentially say one
thing and mean another.  It is Debian's policy to take them at what they
say, rather than what they mean and seek clarification since everyone
benefits that way and at least in the case of things like pine the
assumption of what UW means compared to what they say has turned out to be

> 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.

It is.  It's a bad idea to rely on it and any lawyer can tell you so and
give you a whole host of reasons beginning with it being a court's
determination rather than yours as to what permission if any is implicitly
granted.  But it is legal.

That doesn't mean Debian is willing to accept it.  To much is totally
subjective that way and Debian has always insisted that the licenses be
cut and dry.  KDE isn't and never will be.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

It's not usually cost effective time wise to go do it. But if something's
really pissing you off, you just go find the code and fix it and that's
really cool.
        -- John Carmack, on the advantages of open source

Reply to: