On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:38:36PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote: > [Note: I am moving this to debian-legal, where it belongs.]
Good. > > At this point I'm going to reiterate my concern about linking Qt to > > the GPL'd boot floppies code. Don't do it, it's a violation of > > license as far as I can tell. > > > > Bottom line is that Debian has publicly supported QT2's license. If not > then how > about clearing this issue up publicly, have you or not? > > The conclusion that we came to, I believe, is that Qt 2.0 is DFSG-free > (Open Source). That doesn't mean that it's GPL compatible (it's not, > IIRC)), which is a separate issue. Yes, we did. > Please read the debian-legal archives for more information. You can > find them at > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/ > The most relevant months are Nov and Dec 1998. There may also be some > relevant messages in the debian-devel archive. > > I am not trying to say that Qt is a bad library or that its licensing > is bad in some way, BTW. But its license is not compatible with the > GPL. Correct. This is a problem and it will keep KDE out of Debian until resolved. Guess who gets to resolve it? I must be mad I tell you. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Overfiend> partycle: I seriously do need a vacation from this package. I actually had a DREAM about introducing a stupid new bug into xbase-preinst last night. That's a Bad Sign.
pgp9u3b7l53Qf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
