Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
>
> Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
> rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or
> "The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the GPL this is
> required. But, alas, I have failed :-(. While I could respect your different
> reading of the GPL, I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking with
> XFree code but not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by
> claiming that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went through
> a thorough exercise of showing why this in fact can't be done (my post bearing
> Message-ID <38955EF0.52C053CC@mieterra.com>), nobody has responded, perhaps b/c
> you agree that I am right.
>
Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission. In
particular, the XFree86 copyright notice's permissions only apply to (a)
copies you get without another license, and (b) to the original work (not
derivatives). The fact that it permits copying of their code is a waiving
(mostly) their copyright protections. It doesn't invalidate any
other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't
invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with
sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable. Furthermore, it is
perfectly legal to distribute the exact same expression under multiple
copyright licenses. I don't have to "re-license" all currently existing
versions of the code to comply with the GPL on a version that includes or
is derivative of some GPL'ed work. I only have to distribute that version
under the GPL.
You should really either (a) consult a lawyer, (b) do some legal
reading on IP/contract law/torts, and/or (c) take some law classes.
If you insist on continuing to debate what many of us consider obvious
(e.g. that X licensed code may be redistributed under a proprietary
license) then it would be best for you to post (in a relatively short way)
your basic assumptions that are leading you to your conclusions. My wager
is that we'll disagree with one of your assumptions, so maybe we'll get
somewhere more fruitful (no guarantees though).
Lynn
Reply to: