Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread Joseph Carter
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,

Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread Joseph Carter
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

Re: [levin@openprojects.net: The license]

1998-12-19 Thread Richard Stallman
The Secure Mailer license you sent me is quite different from the Jikes license. They share a major problem, though. If someone makes an accusation that the software infringes a patent, IBM can force you to fold and stop using the program. This means that neither Jikes nor Secure Mailer is free

Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread Kevin Forge
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 ?

Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread Avus
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

Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread Kevin Forge
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

Re: Your petition to GPL Qt

1998-12-19 Thread john
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