Re: licencing doubts about APT
2008/11/9 Andre Felipe Machado <andremachado@techforce.com.br>:
> Sorry for my limited English skill.
No problem, for many (most?) people here, English is not our native tongue.
> I am not a licensing expert, so I _guess_ that as the source code was
> licensed under a different one some years ago, it may "carry" some kind
> of potential liability from that date, in an theoric situation of a
> fork, for example.
> Maybe, some source code from that date should have to be verifiable
> compliant with the terms at that time.
If none of the code in the Debian package is licensed under the Qt
license, then the Qt license should not be included or referred to in
the package.
What other people do with forks is not your problem. They must
license their fork in accordance with the license(s) of the exact code
they fork from.
> Could I post this issue at debian-legal?
Yes, questions like this usually lives in debian-legal.
Cheers,
--
Jens Peter Secher.
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_.
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
Reply to: