Re: KDE not in Debian?
Joseph Carter wrote:
> It seems actually that they are not. Much of KDE is still GPL'd and there
> largely seems to be little to no interest among the KDE people to do
> anything about it.
I think what you're seeing is a lack of urgency rather than a lack of
interest. A lot of the *new* KDE applications, including most of
KOffice, are not under the GPL. But why change the old licenses (playing
the devil's advocate)? They have given explicit and public permission
for everyone to distribute KDE. That some people delude themselves into
thinking such permission has not been given is irrelevant to KDE.
> Additionally, Troll Tech doesn't seem at all interested in making their
> license compatible with the GPL.
It's not Troll Tech's problem. The QPL does not offer legal insurance to
users of Qt.
After the incredible abuse they've received from the hands of certain
advocates, Troll Tech has no desire to license their software under the
LGPL. And they have no reason to. Qt is operating as the model
commercial Open Source project. Troll Tech receives fixes and
enhancements from the community and the community in turn takes pieces
for their own projects. Peruse the qt-interest mailing list and check on
their CVS logs.
> After all I went through personally to try and help them fix their legal
> issues, I'm kinda upset that none of these people are even talking to me
> at this point. As a result I suspect we will _NEVER_ see KDE in Debian,
> as much as I would like to see that problem resolved.
It is not KDE's fault that KDE is not in Debian. Rather, it is the other
way around. Yes, I fully understand the issues and why Debian won't
include it, but that still doesn't make it KDE's fault. They've had no
problems getting their software included in Mandrake, Slackware, SuSE,
TurboLinux, Caldera, Corel, Storm, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. And only
minor problems with Redhat. Did I miss any? Only Debian refuses to
include it.
> That they don't care is offensive to us, and as
> long as they continue to abuse it, we can't support them.
How is the world is KDE abusing the GPL? They are the licensor!
> I suggest we boycott KDE (and suggest others do the same) until such
> time as the KDE people or the Troll Tech people (it technically isn't
> their problem, they just happen to be in the simplest position to fix it)
> or perhaps both wake up.
Okay, you're not being rational about this anymore. If KDE is the
wrongdoer (generally one only boycotts wrongdoers), how could anything
Troll Tech do change that? If KDE can transform from the wrongdoer into
an upstanding citizen of the "community" without any action on their
part whatsoever, then I suspect that they weren't wrongdoers to begin
with.
> I'm seriously considering getting an article posted to some major Linux
> news source discussing this blatant GPL abuse (and in some cases I dare
> say Copyright infringement) and the KDE team's apparent lack of interest
> in the matter. And you damned well better believe the article would
> mention my connection to the QPL.
Now I am lost and confused. What blatant GPL abuse? What copyright
infringement? Please enlighten me on this issue. I seem to have missed
something very important here. All along I thought the issue was a
perceived incompatibility between the QPL and the GPL. I don't recall
the FSF being the licensor for KDE.
> I hate to have to take this track with the KDE project or with Qt, it's
> much easier when we're all talking civilly. However as a supporter of the
> Linux platform, the GNU project, and Free Software in general, I must at
> some point decide that enough is enough.
<flame>
Enough is enough of what? Not getting your way on someone *else's*
project? That someone *else* won't license their software the way *you*
want?
</flame>
If you want to know who was uncivil, I suggest you pore through the
various mailing list and forum archives. I recall thousands of extremely
vitriolic missives to both KDE and Troll Tech, but only a dozen or so
that were lobbed back. Please, please don't start this useless war all
over again by launching a boycott.
David Johnson
Reply to: