J.H.M. Dassen Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apperantly you seem to think otherwise. Why, in your opinion, would > having a kde-src package (similar to the qmail-src and pine-src we > already have) make Debian liable for contributory infringement?
Because the licenses are different. qmail-src and pine-src do not have the problems of GPL+(old Qt license). In other words, the kde issue is a license issue, it's not something that's built into copyright law. But this is pretty basic: maybe you need me to go over the issues again, with each of these licenses? > > (2) the GPL -- for example, try to explain how it can restrict > > binaries in this case without also restricting source. > > The GPL says: > :Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > :covered by this License; they are outside its scope. > > Thus, in the privacy of my own system, I can compile a GPL-ed source against > whatever evil licensed library I wish (say a binary-only one like libforms). That doesn't show that distribution of the source under dubious circumstances is legal -- certainly it makes no distinction between binaries and source. -- Raul
