On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Nicolas Pavillon < pavillon.nico...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How come Linux distributions can provide binary packages for kdepim? > I am not sure about that. The thing is that most of openssl use from KDE > is swept under the carpet by avoiding any standard linking (only linking at > runtime is used), and most project are moving to Qt SSL module instead. Not > that anything of it changes the license restrictions. > For what it's worth, there *are* rare people in the Linux community who won't use KDE because they do not trust license conflicts like this; KDE has a history of them. >From a practical standpoint, though, it's effectively "legal until challenged" --- and nobody seems to be willing to challenge it, so it's ignored. I think this actually has legal implications, insofar as those kinds of restrictions have to be enforced or challenged for them to stand and ignoring a known violation can lead a court to conclude that the restriction is not actually in effect; but talk to an IP lawyer about the details. And *don't* try to rely on it, because it's only "real" if it stands up in court; it's the sword of Damocles until then. Note also that MacPorts has some constraints that others may not: if someone *does* challenge it, Apple might as a provider of hardware and services for MacPorts be caught by the blowback. As I understand it, the connection is a bit closer than that of people providing hardware or hosting for, say, Debian (although not a whole *lot* closer) --- but sometimes these do have legal implications. So we need to be somewhat more careful about license conflicts, just in case. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
