Maybe an alternate solution Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00095.html: >In the case of KDE, big chunks of it are written for use with Qt. So, >it would be really trivial for the authors to grant explicit permission >to distribute their software with Qt. But they haven't -- at least, >not the last time I checked. > >And, you have to ask yourself: Why? > >And the answer, I think, is that if they did, the pieces of software >which weren't originally written for Qt would stand out. And, a KDE with >those pieces missing would be a lot less attractive than KDE as a whole. > >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 -- nontrivial packages, but only six of them). So what exactly do they need to do ? "a reasonably solid statement of permission" contact all kde developer to do so ? Maybe asking them to LGPL is easier... We should propose them both solution.
>In the mean time, we wait. No more :)
