Modifications to QT May be licensed as QPL or GPL or Both. However
only those modifications which include a QPL license, or GPL+QPL
License will be in the official QT since both the Free and
professional
editions must be the same.
I think this is a good approach. Mo
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 02:08:48AM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:
> > c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls
> >can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let
> >them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is
> >alw
Kevin Forge writes:
> As an example NexT was "attacked" for making proprietary enhancements to
> GCC.
That was a clear violation of the GPL.
> However the same NeXt shipped GCC linked against it's proprietary LibC
> and _that_ wasn't mentioned as a problem.
Because it wasn't. That is *exactly*
Kevin Forge wrote:
>
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > 3. You may distribute modified copies if:
> > a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
> > b. Your mods are distinguishable from the original source. Pretty
> >much defining this the way the GPL does along with Troll Tech's
> >
Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> 3. You may distribute modified copies if:
> a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
> b. Your mods are distinguishable from the original source. Pretty
>much defining this the way the GPL does along with Troll Tech's
>preferences for mods as pat
Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
> >
> > Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
>
> ... Linked to lesstif ...
It's older than LessTif by years if memory serves me reasonably.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge writes:
> And perhaps they have special permission from the authors. These are
> private companies. We have no way to know what private arrangements they
> may have made or what their internal decision making processes are.
My point was that this never c
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 11:52:06PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > > > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
> > >
> > > Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
> >
> > ... Linked to lesstif ...
>
> Eh? No, it's not.
My mistake, it's not. (in case you can't tell, I do not use emacs)
--
N
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 05:24:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [3]
> > c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls
> >can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let
> >them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is
> >
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:16:33 -0800, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Joseph> On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joseph> wrote:
>> > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
>>
>> Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
Joseph> ... Linked to les
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[3]
> c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls
>can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let
>them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is
>always a free software vers
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
> >
> > Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
>
> ... Linked to lesstif ...
Eh? No, it's not.
--
James
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
> Here's where I am headed (another outline):
>
> 1. This license applies if you distribute Qt.
> 2. You may distribute unmodified copies.
> 3. You may distribute modified copies if:
> a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
> b. Your mods are distinguishab
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
>
> Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
... Linked to lesstif ...
--
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
[ I'm snipping a few people from the Cc list for replies to this message
by trimming the Mail-Followups-To: header. ]
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 02:07:13AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Troll Tech's stated goal is to be compatible with all of these licenses
> which meet the Open Source Def
Kevin Forge writes:
> Maybe they do it because the many high priced lawyers they have told them
> a complaint would be laughed out of court ?
Sun and BSDI make and ship their own CD's. Nobody pulls Solaris off the
net and presses CD's from it, and nobody relies on Sun to supply them with
a comple
Troll Tech's stated goal is to be compatible with all of these licenses
which meet the Open Source Definition (and because of the origins of that
document, the Debian Free Software Guidelines).
If that is the goal, they definitely need to change the license.
The present QPL does not me
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 01:19:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The draft update of the DFSG has not been accepted. It hasn't even
> > received a great deal of support. And in any case, thanks to the
> > comments of various Debian developers, the QPL fulfills this draft
> > anyway.
>
> Also, note
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 07:13:54AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> okay! important idea!
> but what has this to do with KDE? or the QT license?
Debian is concerned about Qt's license and about the future of KDE.
> dont you understand that the most important thing is to keep
> KDE moving forwar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
Maybe they do it because the many high priced lawyers they have
told them a complaint would be laughed out of court ? Besides. They
have al
(recipients trimmed to just debian-legal)
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 01:22:15AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [0] For example, we distribute GPLed binaries linked against Motif. We
> > do this because Sun has. Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe Qt is the same,
> > and we shouldn't do that either. But
Anthony Towns wrote:
> KDE can only be redistributed by Debian if Qt is distributable under the
> GPL, or if Qt is `normally distributed with the major components' of
> Debian. The thread up until now has been bickering about just what that
> means in Debian's context -- we've never really thought
> > looking at the mailinglists they would even change their DFSG to get
> > a good reason to abolish KDE
Anthony Towns wrote:
> The draft update of the DFSG has not been accepted. It hasn't even
> received a great deal of support. And in any case, thanks to the
> comments of various Debian devel
Apologies for the excessive Cc'ing.
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 07:13:54AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 21 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Kevin Forge writes:
> > > The authors of the apps KDE has "adopted" haven't been complaining
> > > either.
> > They could at any time. Sun and BSDI
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge writes:
> > You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those Motif
> > based GPL apps.
>
> That must be determined by the authors of those apps.
The authors of the apps KDE has "adopted" haven't been complaining
either.
> > So debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
> > Solaris or BSDI.
Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those
> Motif based GPL apps. Wasn't XEMacs linked to Motif years ago.
Kevin Forge writes:
> You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those Motif
> based GPL apps.
That must be determined by the authors of those apps.
> So debian doesn't have any system libraries ?
One could argue that, yes. Go and reread the GPL and think about the fact
that
The Debian project
is huge now, we are finding that some mirrors are mirroring only part of
the distribution, often just the binaries for certain architectures
because they just don't have that many gigabytes of HD space. It could
be argued that you can still get the source "
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
> Solaris or BSDI.
You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those
Motif based GPL apps. Wasn't XEMacs linked to Motif years ago.
I.e. Before LessTif was drool on the lip o
Opps -:- My last post used BSDI and Solaris interchangeably.
Just do a search and replace ( Solaris -> BSDI or BSDI -> Solaris :)
Kevin Forge wrote:
>
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> In order for QT to qualif
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 09:31:17PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> ... A combined work would have a shared Copyright
> and still be under the GNU GPL which would prevent Troll Tech from
> releasing the combined work under other licensing terms.
>
> This would almost certainly ca
Kevin Forge writes:
> Now when you can get back to me with an explanation of how to make Motif
> a System lib on Solaris...
I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
Solaris or BSDI.
> ...not make QT ( under the QPL ) one in Debian or any other Linux
> distribution t
Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to
> be a
>> 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
>> the system like that.
programme should not be in the Debian packages, unless Debian officially
grants Qt the 'system library status' to use the respective exception
clause in the GPL.
There is no such thing as "system library status" in the GPL. That's
a misunderstanding of a certain paragraph in the GPL,
... A combined work would have a shared Copyright
and still be under the GNU GPL which would prevent Troll Tech from
releasing the combined work under other licensing terms.
This would almost certainly cause a rift to develop between their
Professional Edition and their Free
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 09:43:37AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree that the linking clause is not strictly required for the material
> > originated by the KDE authors, but many people disagree with me on this.
> > Adding a linking clause would do no harm and would satisfy everyone and
>
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 02:30:28PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to
> be a
>> 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
>> the system like that. The 'system library' idea thus fails for pu
Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to be a
> 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
> the system like that. The 'system library' idea thus fails
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Avus wrote:
> > Unfortunately Debian didn't mention the system library clause and why
> > *they* didn't want to use it (DFSG don't allow non-free libs to be part
> > of the system).
>
> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to be a
> 'req
Avus wrote:
> Unfortunately Debian didn't mention the system library clause and why
> *they* didn't want to use it (DFSG don't allow non-free libs to be part
> of the system).
In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to be a
'required' package, and it would drag in X. N
I wrote:
> I agree that the linking clause is not strictly required for the material
> originated by the KDE authors, but many people disagree with me on this.
> Adding a linking clause would do no harm and would satisfy everyone and
> prevent this issue from coming up again in the future.
Joseph
On Sat, Dec 19, 1998 at 10:17:25AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Basically the GPL with a provision to allow linking to QT. For the bulk
> > of KDE that isn't needed since it was WRITTEN to use QT. This is an
> > "implicit declaration" ( I think that's the term ).
>
> I agree that the link
[ I took the liberty of reformatting your message to fit a text display
and be more readable in the process. ]
On Sat, Dec 19, 1998 at 02:49:27PM +0100, Avus wrote:
> > Essentially in the end the headers and whatnot will read "This
> > application is licensed under the GPL. We also allow linking
Kevin Forge writes:
> Basically the GPL with a provision to allow linking to QT. For the bulk
> of KDE that isn't needed since it was WRITTEN to use QT. This is an
> "implicit declaration" ( I think that's the term ).
I agree that the linking clause is not strictly required for the material
orig
Avus wrote:
>
> o it is not clear if a modified GPL is still compatible with the GPL, in
> all cases. Some people will argue that it is not. If a developer wants
> to use code under "modified GPL", does then the whole work have to carry
> the license addition, even if Qt is not needed there? Or ta
Kevin Forge wrote:
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> > > putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
> >
> > It is if KDE remains under the GPL -- otherwise, no.
> >
> > > Or would a "simple" GPL-and-l
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> > putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
>
> It is if KDE remains under the GPL -- otherwise, no.
>
> > Or would a "simple" GPL-and-link to-QT License alteration sofice ?
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I started to, last summer. I gave up after getting a few dozen authors,
> and I ran out of time for that kind of research. Someone else in Debian
> was going to continue the work of compiling the names, but I forget who
> it was...
Tha
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 09:24:28AM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>
>
> Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
It's essential for burying this license issue once and for all. It's not
essential for Debian per se,
Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
It is if KDE remains under the GPL -- otherwise, no.
> Or would a "simple" GPL-and-link to-QT License alteration sofice ?
Huh?
> I ask because the only it
Joseph Carter wrote:
Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
putting QT & KDE in Debian main ? Or would a "simple" GPL-and-link
to-QT License alteration sofice ? I ask because the only item of
concern for KDe are those few apps which have some GPLed code from
other de
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would almost certainly cause a rift to develop between their
> Professional Edition and their Free Edition as development forks into at
> least two directions, the Free Edition gaining all of the enhancements
> made to the Professional Edition but the
Mr. Russell,
I am writing you with regard to your petition[1] to Troll Tech, AS asking
them to GPL their Qt library. I felt I could not with clear conscience
sign this petition and I would like in this letter to address the
concerns in my mind as they relate to it. I am sending Carbon Copies of
55 matches
Mail list logo
