J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 14:00:56 -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
The KDE folks had/have no exception and thus were/are violating the GPL.
Only if they're reusing other people's GPLed code, which reportedly they
don't.
Remember, an author isn't bound by the copyright
Hi,
I just thought of something. I thought the whole reason why KDE wasn't
included in the Debian download trees because of the licensing issues
with QT. If that's the case, then why is QT included in the download tree?!?
If QT is OK to put in there then what's the point of saying KDE can't be
*- On 23 Dec, Bart Szyszka wrote about I thought KDE wasn't included because
of QT?!?
Hi,
I just thought of something. I thought the whole reason why KDE wasn't
included in the Debian download trees because of the licensing issues
with QT. If that's the case, then why is QT included
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 12:26:43PM -0500,
Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought of something. I thought the whole reason why KDE wasn't
included in the Debian download trees because of the licensing issues
with QT. If that's the case, then why is QT included in the download
Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought of something. I thought the whole reason why KDE wasn't
included in the Debian download trees because of the licensing issues
with QT. If that's the case, then why is QT included in the download tree?!?
If QT is OK to put in there then
QT v1 is included in the non-free section. The problem is that KDE is
supposed to be under the GPL but is violating the GPL by linking to QT
which is non-free. So Debian and others decided not to include KDE
until they either fixed the licensing issues or QT became free. QT v2
is under
*- On 23 Dec, Bart Szyszka wrote about Re: I thought KDE wasn't included
because of QT?!?
QT v1 is included in the non-free section. The problem is that KDE is
supposed to be under the GPL but is violating the GPL by linking to QT
which is non-free. So Debian and others decided
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 14:00:56 -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
The KDE folks had/have no exception and thus were/are violating the GPL.
Only if they're reusing other people's GPLed code, which reportedly they
don't.
Remember, an author isn't bound by the copyright license she puts on her own
8 matches
Mail list logo