"Darren O. Benham" wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 09:31:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > > "Darren O. Benham" wrote: > > > > > I think this matter has gone beyond a consensus of debian-legal > > > as any sort of authority. > > > > Why? Perhaps debian-legal consensus has no `authority', but I'm > > satisfied with it. > > > > What has changed since this came up on debian-legal before? The > > only thing is that KDE hasn't changed its license from the GPL > > but other distributions have decided to use it anyway. Debian > > now stands alone not using KDE because of licensing issues. If > > this is enough to raise your doubts concerning our stand on the > > issue, I think you should feel free to seek such clarification > > from RMS. Best to do that before we spend big bucks with a > > lawyer trying to interpret KDE's messy situation. > > Because we're not including KDE on legal reasons of licensing. If there is > no license conflict, legally, then we need to change our consensus to "we > don't include KDE be cause most of the people on debian-legal just don't > like it" or some such... > > Everybody on debian-legal has an opinion.. and most voice it.. but then the > discussion just peters out with the Pro-KDE people not having enough of an > argument to put KDE back in... and the Anti-KDE people not having enough of > a case to shutdown the argument once and for all.
All I said was that nothing has changed, and that we are treating GPL'ed packages linked against XForms the same way. I don't see a Pro-KDE people vs Anti-KDE people issue at all. So take the ball and ask RMS. Isn't that the first step anyway? Peter
