On 21 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: 21 Dec 1998 20:54:56 -0600
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
> Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:48:54 +0100
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Kevin Forge writes:
> > The authors of the apps KDE has "adopted" haven't been complaining
> > either.
>
> They could at any time. Sun and BSDI may be willing to assume that
> infringement is ok as long as they can get away with it. We aren't. We
> have told our CD vendors that they need never fear getting a letter from a
> lawyer as a consequence of pressing Debian CD's. We intend to keep that
> promise.
okay! important idea!
but what has this to do with KDE? or the QT license?
dont you understand that the most important thing is to keep
KDE moving forwards?
debian is just another linux distribution no more no less,
thats it.
there is a difference between loosing debian and loosing the
most advanced desktop project.
the debian team has showed more than once that they dislike KDE.
looking at the mailinglists they would even change their
DFSG to get a good reason to abolish KDE
>
> > Exactly my point. Your argument puts Free OSs as some kind of second
> > class citizen.
>
> The system library exception was a compromise made necessary by the absence
> of free os's and libraries. We are past that now.
i dont belive that. (no bios no CPU etc.)
regards
rolf
PS.: a GPL QT is a bad idea even with a promise of RMS.
remember there are USERS out there who depend on
KDE moving forward.
there is NO room for experiments left.
