The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: qt license

On Thu 30 Oct 1997, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > Here are parts of the newest license for qt1.31 from 
> > http://www.troll.no/qt/license.html. The only restriction is commercial
> > use. Otherwise it is quite similar to other free licenses. It even forces
> > other components to be free.
> 
> I count two others..
>  
> > The Qt toolkit is a product of Troll Tech AS. This license is limited to
> > use with the X Window System. 
> 
> 1) Unacceptable to limit use of the source code to X windows only

hey, they could remove the windows specific code, and then remoce that
restriction.

> > You may copy this version of the Qt toolkit provided that the entire
> > archive is distributed unchanged and as a whole, including this notice. 
> 
> 2) Unacceptable to prohibit modification

oh, many programs don't allow to distribute modified source, and require
binaires from modified source to be marked that way.

> > the following conditions also apply: 
> > 
> >        Your software must not require libraries, programs, data or
> > documentation that are not available outside your organization in order to
> >        compile or use. 
> 
> I don't think this is acceptable either.

why not ? this clause is very similiar to some restrictions in the gpl,
if i remember correctly. "not available" says nothing about being freely
available ... 

> So there are 3 (possibly 4) statements in the license which violate the
> DFSG. The 2nd one definately prevents it from being 'free' software.

i agree, that there is a problem.
said thing : removing the windows related code, and only shipping the
x11 related code (there must be a special layer somewhere, i think)
would remove one problem.

and the other proplem : did anyone give troll a detailed report, how we
see it ? maybe they will change some things, if we explain the problems
we have without the "holy war" things. did anyone try ? i don't think so.

i don't understand the problem with the last paragraph, that everything
needed to run the program must be available. with wich of our 9
guidlines does it conflict ? btw "available" does neither mean "freely
available" nor "available as source". i understand this as "there must
be a away to run your software". can you construct a case, where this
clause is a problem ? i can't think of one.

andreas


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .