On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:49:58 -0500 Noah Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course apt (which is nothing without the excellent work the > > package maintainers put in). I like the philosophical stance of > > Debian GNU/Linux being a big proponent of the GPL. I don't think KDE > > would even have changed their licence had it not been for Debian. My > > 2c :) > > Huh? KDE has *always* been GPL. Not only that, but Debian doesn't > favor the GPL over other free software licenses by any means. Read > the DFSG sometime. All licences which meet those criteria are equal > in the eyes of Debian. Sure, that includes the GPL, but it also > includes many other licenses: Xfree86, Apache, BSD, Artistic, etc etc. > > Sorry if I'm being overly pedantic.
I don't think you're being overly pedantic, but the original poster simply made a mistake; it was QT (what KDE is based on, obviously) that has changed its license. Assuming that minor change in the first poster's message, their point is valid. Anyways, you guys both agree on the licenses in Debian issue :) -- .--=====-=-=====-=========----------=====-----------=-=-----=. / David Barclay Harris Aut agere, aut mori. \ \ Clan Barclay Either action, or death. / `-------======-------------=-=-----=-===-=====-------=--=----'
