Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
- From: Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:24:08 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1123100648.4127.2.camel@laptop1>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <D983A82B2EE1D211BED00008C7330586079F7DED@almg-nt9.almg.uucp> <1122495261.4133.85.camel@laptop1> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
> case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
> In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for
> Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have
> a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my
> good name to their conduct in recent years, but YMMV.
In this case, why do you continue to argue with what debian-legal thinks
is the prudent course of action for Debian to take, especially when you
admit that you may not agree with Debian's goals?