many people pointed out, that kde uses code (other than qt) from third sources.
i thought so, too. at the time of kde beta 3 i read every single file of kde
to ensure there are no problems, and there were very few programs with code
from third party sources.
so, you can look at my last kde package
sorry, it needed debian weekly news to get this message:
...
If the KDE folks would make a reasonably solid statement of permission,
[something that counts as a legal grant of permission] we could probably
distribute most of KDE (last time I checked, there were only six packages
which had problems
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> The solution seems rather obvious:
>
> Don't assign the copyright and use your own license.
>
> I can't see a problem with putting pages on the web site that have a
> less restrictive license than the SPI copyright. As a matter of fact,
> there can't be a problem, because
James A. Treacy wrote:
> People need to remember that the web content is the responsibility of
> everyone. Most of the people on this list (including you, Joey) have
> CVS access. If you see a small problem, fix it. If you see a bigger
> problem, discuss it on debian-www and then fix it.
I have C
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> By the way, I assume that Microsoft does not forbid distribution of binaries
> for programs that run under MS Windows (that would certainly decrease the
> popularity of their platform).
If they run without using Microsoft code (fo
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:44:49PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> You may use and distribute this pages, either modified
> or not, as long as you preserve this licence, do not
> misrepresent modified pages as original and plainly
> mark all changes you did.
>
Such a license sounds DFSG fr
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license
> > > in any copies you redistribute.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree
> > licensed code.
On Wed, Feb 02,
> > So? When the program is running, both the GPLed code and the Qt code
> > exist together in the same virtual memory image.
> >
> > Ultimately, there's no difference between run-time linking and
> > compile-time linking except that run-time linking happens at run
> > time while compile-time linki
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> James A. Treacy wrote:
> > I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come
> > to
> > a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
>
> Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me that in all
> > cases a function call is equivalent to a footnote - footnotes you don't need
> > to see to understand the text, a non-standa
James A. Treacy wrote:
> I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come to
> a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
contract!
--
see shy jo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So? When the program is running, both the GPLed code and the Qt code
> exist together in the same virtual memory image.
>
> Ultimately, there's no difference between run-time linking and
> compile-time linking except that run-time linking happens at run ti
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:17:24AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Arrrgh!
>
> I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
> change it to something free.
>
> I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
> out under this license. If something
On Feb 02, Joey Hess wrote:
> I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
> change it to something free.
>
> I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
> out under this license. If something isn't done soon, I may move future
> issues,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> > > statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the
> > > GPL, and
> > > not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 06:21:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Well, there certainly is no case law reference that Qt is incompatible
> with GPL, is there? I thought the uncertainly is what bothers Debian.
> Looks like at best we have thick uncertainty here.
The problem isn't uncertainty so much
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any
> > copies you
> > redistribute.
>
> So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree licensed
> code.
Right, b/c bot
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> > statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL,
> > and
> > not . . . stricter conditions, we may concl
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any
> copies you
> redistribute.
So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree licensed
code.
--
Raul
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > So we must "cause the App and X sources to be licensed as a whole at no
> > > charge
> > > to all third parties under the terms of this License". I've already
> > > commented
> > > on the word "cau
Arrrgh!
I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
change it to something free.
I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
out under this license. If something isn't done soon, I may move future
issues, and keep the copyright, rahte
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL,
> and
> not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third parties receive
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:28:29PM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source
> >> code" in the same way as software.
> TW> Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:55:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's
> pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more?
If one want to modify it, he certainly have a good reason to do it.
Will SPI lawsuit him for it ?
> A
Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > So we must "cause the App and X sources to be licensed as a whole at no
> > charge
> > to all third parties under the terms of this License". I've already
> > commented
> > on the word "cause"; in the ordinary sense of "cause an
> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source
>> code" in the same way as software.
TW> Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
Yes they have. There are even Perl compilers.
TW> And web pages
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:55:27PM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.
Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
Do you claim that perl programs are not software ?
And web pages have source code : HT
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:49:36PM +, Terry Dawson wrote:
> If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must
> be an art form.
Not every program is a work of art, by any means. The analogy to
architecture is pretty strong: (in an ideal world) the primary concerns
are func
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking with XFree code but
> > not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by claiming
> > that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went throu
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Secondly, the claim is not that the API is copyrighted, it's that the code
> calling it is derivative of the implementation of the API.
Right, that is the claim that was to be rejected.
> There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me t
Per Lundberg wrote:
> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.
>
> TW> And programming is kind of art.
>
> Sure. But *software* is not art.
If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must
be an art form.
For
Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking with XFree code but
> not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by claiming
> that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went through a
> thorough exercise of showin
> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry,
>> books and IMO web pages) and software.
TW> Web pages are not poetry.
That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
in the same way
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:53:51AM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TD" == Terry Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Web pages are not software.
> TD> Is there a sensible difference?
>
> Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry, books
> and IMO web pages) an
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C
> > can do certain
> > things, B can't change what A has permitted C to do. But in the event this
> > is not clear
> >
> "TD" == Terry Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Web pages are not software.
TD> Is there a sensible difference?
Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry, books
and IMO web pages) and software.
Per Lundberg wrote:
> TW> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ? It's not
> TW> DFSG-free.
>
> Web pages are not software.
Is there a sensible difference?
Terry
> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TW> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ? It's not
TW> DFSG-free.
Web pages are not software.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C
> can do certain
> things, B can't change what A has permitted C to do. But in the event this
> is not clear
> enough, XFree code specifically says yo
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >
> > >Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> > > listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
> >
> > > derivatives) under the GPL or practically
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:25:08AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Troll Tech indicates it is their intention to catch people who are not
> > distributing code to cough up a copy.
>
> Well, if that were the case, why does Section 6 kick in only when there is a
> distribution?
Because the person wh
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> >Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> > listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
>
> > derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
> > preser
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
> >
> > Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had
> > made
> > rather than continue to make the generalized stat
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies
> > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and
> > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy
> > if they ask. The QPL is completely sil
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > i was going by the Open Source Definition
> > (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i wonder why the debian definition is
> > different.
>
> Because when the open-source definition was originally being defined
> some ch
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
>
> Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
> rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or
> "The GPL re
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:06:13PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> Would you accept a QPLd bugfix to a LGPL library?
No more than I'd accept a Qt support patch to a GPLed program.
> The KDE/Qt situation is much different. Qt is outside of KDE. They have
> distinct copyright holders. They only make
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:35:15PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> Oh, but it does! I'm sorry that I can't quote the relevant law to you,
That's all right, I know what you're talking about and you're right it has
been tried many times and has failed each one so far.
> not being a lawyer or anythin
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 07:06:04PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> > > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies
> > > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and
> > > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy
> >
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies
> > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and
> > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy
> > if they ask. The QPL is completely silent on pe
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:07:37AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> > My belief is that the provisions that might require you to
> > give your source code to Troll, even if the binary code is not
> > distributed to others, were the most egregious (the GPL only obligates
> > you to give source code to
Raul Miller wrote:
> You don't see what the problem is.
>
> You *refuse* to accept even bug fixes that are GPLed, but you don't see
> what the problem is.
>
> I take it that there's no basis for your refusal then?
I think we're talking two languages here. I would have to refuse any
GPLd bugfix
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:12:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Finally, I wonder if anyone would be interested in reviving the Harmony
> project?
I'm interested and would contribute as studies permitted. I need a good
C++ GUI toolkit and I need one that is compatible with my own GPL'd code
(I'm o
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:16:36PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> While I could respect your different reading of the GPL, I cannot see
> how your reading of the GPL allows linking with XFree code but not Qt
> code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by claiming
> that the XFree code ca
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or
"The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the G
I can think of three potential solutions to the GPL/QPL license conflict:
(1) rewrite from scratch all KDE programs so that they don't use GPL.
(2) contact all the authors of the existing KDE GPLed programs, and
get appropriate permissions.
(3) write a GPLed Qt workalike (that is
Raul Miller wrote:
> > So, if I take someone else's GPLed code, and add it to Qt, I have
> > to re-release it under terms that say that Troll can re-release it
> > under non-GPLed terms.
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 11:19:58AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> But if I take QPLd code and add it to your GPL
57 matches
Mail list logo
