I *really* think we need more than the web page says. Particularly,
the sections of the body which we specifically disclaim.
This isn't a change in our license; we are not GPL to start with. And
with debian's GPL interpretation (which i'll repeat, is a legal
absurdity), debian cannot distribute lyx for the same reasons they
can't distribute KDE.
If we act first, our position becomes the starting point. If debian
acts first, we'll be caught in the middle of a holy war.
I believe the solution is a clarification that provides:
1) the legal reasons that we aren't GPL.
2) That the clarification is not a *change* in the license
3) The sections of the body that we disclaim, and possibly (my
prefference) the preamble and postscript.
Unless someone can show me how we differ from KDE/qt, i don't see any
other outcome than debian claiming that we don't let them distribute
lyx and that their respecting our wishes and preferences, as they do
with KDE.
rick, esq.
--
