Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
Raul Miller wrote: If all the relevant authors sign off on the statement, there would be no problem. But if some authors don't sign off then that would be a problem. But this doesn't explain why kdelibs are not (or will not be) included. The license in question here is LGPL instead of GPL. And once they are included, non-GPL KDE apps can be included as well, such as a lot of KOffice, Cervisia, etc. Why has this stuff been left out? David Johnson
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
Raul Miller wrote: If all the relevant authors sign off on the statement, there would be no problem. But if some authors don't sign off then that would be a problem. On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:14:56PM -0800, David Johnson wrote: But this doesn't explain why kdelibs are not (or will not be) included. The license in question here is LGPL instead of GPL. And once they are included, non-GPL KDE apps can be included as well, such as a lot of KOffice, Cervisia, etc. Why has this stuff been left out? I don't know anything specific about the kdelibs package. You'd have to ask the package maintainer. -- Raul
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Andreas Pour wrote: Most of the time this has worked rather well for us. But, somehow, people are offended that Debian isn't distributing KDE. To be fair, people were offended by the Debian statement that distributing KDE is unlawful and to a lesser extent by the tirades offered by *some* Debian developers. Each distribution obviously makes its own choices on what to distribute. The issue that I disagreed with is that kdelibs, kdesupport, kdebase, and kdenetwork aren't included in Debian. These packages are of entirely KDE developed software (of which the free nature is undisputed) which depends on Qt (non-free) so these packages should IMHO go into non-free. These are the core KDE packages and I believe that most people who use KDE don't make any serious use of other KDE packages. Having these in Debian will make things much easier for many people. That's isn't really a legal issue. There is a legal issue, but: Debian is not obligated to distribute KDE. Agreed, except to the extent Debian has the self-imposed obligation to supply its users with the best Open Source software packages :-). Debian is not obligated to do anything. But what it does do is distribute software which is free and software which can be used without cost (non-free). I believe that as the 4 core KDE packages I list above fit the latter description they should be in non-free. (2) a maintainer who is interested in supporting it, and I think Ivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been maintaining KDE packages for potato and slink, and has made them available at ftp://ftp.us.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/1.1.2/distribution/deb/, and I believe http://ftp.workspot.com/pub/kde/debian/. I also think Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been involved. Other people that might be interested include Bernd and Russell. If none of these gentlemen is willing and able I am quite confident a cross-post on debian-devel and kde-devel will turn up someone who is. deb http://kde.tdyc.com potato kde contrib Is where I currently get my KDE packages from. I currently am not involved in KDE packaging or development. The difficulties involved with distributing KDE Debian packages, and in keeping up to date with all the things it depended on made it too difficult to be an effective use of my time. Now I spend my time developing my own software. I will consider developing KDE packages again if things change and my work in that regard can productively benefit the community. -- Confucius wrote: To be fond of knowledge is better than simply acquiring it, and to take delight in it is far better than simply being fond of it.
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
Chris Lawrence wrote: (I guess I'm missing the reason why it's so hard to get people to explicitly say you can link this against Qt; that apparently would satisfy the FTP maintainers and let KDE 1 into contrib [and KDE 2 into main]). My assumption would be that those certain people see absolutely no need to do it. Their interpretation of the GPL says it's okay. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. They don't see that it's broken. But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in contrib or main. David Johnson
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0800, David Johnson wrote: But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in contrib or main. This could happen for one reason only: If nobody is willing to maintain it. But as we already have volunteers, this is very unlikely. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0800, David Johnson wrote: But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in contrib or main. [Warning: I'm repeating myself. I've said all of this in earlier email.] If all the relevant authors sign off on the statement, there would be no problem. But if some authors don't sign off then that would be a problem. This is especially true if the primary authors of some piece of software don't sign off on this additional clarification. And this is especially important for the case where the software was originally written for use without Qt. [For example, kvt: kvt's original license is good enough to put it in non-free without any additional clarification. But to go in main or contrib additional clarification would be needed.] -- Raul
Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:01:32AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: Now, if you truly mean what you said below -- namely Debian doesn't have millions of IPO dollars to finance a legal fight. And our actions can affect our distributors as well. Therefore, we have to be careful. -- then this uncertainty should stop Debian from distributing mixed BSD/GPL code as well. Ahem.. The most ironic thing about this whole KDE/Debian Qt/GPL licensing thing is the underlying motives. Debian tries to maintain a good relationship with the upstream authors. We ask for permission to distribute code, and if it's clearly granted, and we have a maintainer who wants to maintain the code we distribute it. If we don't have clear permission, then good taste demands that we don't distribute it. Most of the time this has worked rather well for us. But, somehow, people are offended that Debian isn't distributing KDE. I guess the primary problem is that there are authors of KDE software who very clearly have not granted permission to distribute while there are other authors who very clearly have. That's isn't really a legal issue. There is a legal issue, but: Debian is not obligated to distribute KDE. As always, it looks like progress is being made towards where Debian might be able to distribute KDE. Personally, I think that we should be distributing KDE as long as we have (1) users who want it (2) a maintainer who is interested in supporting it, and (3) real permission to distribute from the authors. At the moment, 2 and 3 both look like problems. -- Raul
BSD-like freedom (was Re: KDE not in Debian?)
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Jeff Licquia wrote: If you want to allow either total BSD-like freedom or complete proprietariness, you should write a license that forbids any middle ground. It strikes me as odd that someone would be pissed about the GPL's restrictions yet be perfectly cool with a complete loss of freedom. I suppose that it takes all types. Here's my take on BSD-like freedom: I've got more than a dozen boxes (from F5) running BSD software. I'm not free to redistribute this software. I don't even have access to the source code for this software. To upgrade this software requires serious money. -- Raul
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
Raul Miller wrote: [ ... ] Debian tries to maintain a good relationship with the upstream authors. We ask for permission to distribute code, and if it's clearly granted, and we have a maintainer who wants to maintain the code we distribute it. If we don't have clear permission, then good taste demands that we don't distribute it. Most of the time this has worked rather well for us. But, somehow, people are offended that Debian isn't distributing KDE. To be fair, people were offended by the Debian statement that distributing KDE is unlawful and to a lesser extent by the tirades offered by *some* Debian developers. Each distribution obviously makes its own choices on what to distribute. I guess the primary problem is that there are authors of KDE software who very clearly have not granted permission to distribute while there are other authors who very clearly have. That's isn't really a legal issue. There is a legal issue, but: Debian is not obligated to distribute KDE. Agreed, except to the extent Debian has the self-imposed obligation to supply its users with the best Open Source software packages :-). As always, it looks like progress is being made towards where Debian might be able to distribute KDE. Personally, I think that we should be distributing KDE as long as we have (1) users who want it I think the success of Stormix Linux and Corel Linux prove that a huge demand exists for KDE with Debian. (2) a maintainer who is interested in supporting it, and I think Ivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been maintaining KDE packages for potato and slink, and has made them available at ftp://ftp.us.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/1.1.2/distribution/deb/, and I believe http://ftp.workspot.com/pub/kde/debian/. I also think Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been involved. Other people that might be interested include Bernd and Russell. If none of these gentlemen is willing and able I am quite confident a cross-post on debian-devel and kde-devel will turn up someone who is. (3) real permission to distribute from the authors. I do not quite know what you mean by this, but if you mean that to conform to your practice noted above of confirming from package authors that packages can be distributed by Debian, I will see if I can get the core KDE developers to send you their approval that you distribute KDE code. Mail me privately please if you think it is worth any effort and I will get started on it. At the moment, 2 and 3 both look like problems. Easily solved ones. Are there no other obstacles? Ciao, Andreas
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Jan 29, Andreas Pour wrote: (3) real permission to distribute from the authors. I do not quite know what you mean by this, but if you mean that to conform to your practice noted above of confirming from package authors that packages can be distributed by Debian, I will see if I can get the core KDE developers to send you their approval that you distribute KDE code. Mail me privately please if you think it is worth any effort and I will get started on it. It's a bit more complicated than that with some of the KDE software, because the GPL does not technically permit the linking of software against libraries that have licenses more restrictive than the GPL (like the QPL, which has restrictions on for-profit use on Win32). If all of the code in a particular KDE app is written by KDE members, all we need is something like: KFlarg is (C) 1999 Foo and Bar. You may use and distribute KFlarg under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 (or a later version, at your discretion). As a special exception, you may also link KFlarg against the Qt widget library. (I forget the exact phrasing we decided was appropriate; but, some stuff that uses XForms in contrib uses it. I do know the correct version is longer). However, there are several instances of software in KDE being repackagings of existing software, with some work to integrate it into KDE (I am told KGV fits into this category). In these cases, because not all of the work was done by the KDE group, we also need permission from the author of the original software (GV in this case) to link against the GPL-incompatible software. [Personally, I think if you wrote the software yourself and link it against Qt, it's pretty obvious from a legal standpoint that you accept people linking it against Qt. However, if you take someone else's software and do the same thing, I can't see how we (or anyone else) can interpret that as acceptable. A lot of people have made a possibly erroneous assumption that authors like that of GV won't consider linking against Qt an abuse, and there are plenty of fat targets out there for a lawsuit (Corel, Red Hat, Caldera...).] Chris -- = | Chris Lawrence | Your source for almost nothing of value: | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lordsutch.com/ | || | |Open Directory Editor | Are you tired of politics as usual? | | http://dmoz.org/ | http://www.lp.org/ | =
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
Chris Lawrence wrote: On Jan 29, Andreas Pour wrote: (3) real permission to distribute from the authors. I do not quite know what you mean by this, but if you mean that to conform to your practice noted above of confirming from package authors that packages can be distributed by Debian, I will see if I can get the core KDE developers to send you their approval that you distribute KDE code. Mail me privately please if you think it is worth any effort and I will get started on it. It's a bit more complicated than that with some of the KDE software, because the GPL does not technically permit the linking of software against libraries that have licenses more restrictive than the GPL (like the QPL, which has restrictions on for-profit use on Win32). If all of the code in a particular KDE app is written by KDE members, all we need is something like: KFlarg is (C) 1999 Foo and Bar. You may use and distribute KFlarg under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 (or a later version, at your discretion). As a special exception, you may also link KFlarg against the Qt widget library. Oh, this is an old point. I thought for a moment we were breaking new ground. . . . (I forget the exact phrasing we decided was appropriate; but, some stuff that uses XForms in contrib uses it. I do know the correct version is longer). However, there are several instances of software in KDE being repackagings of existing software, with some work to integrate it into KDE (I am told KGV fits into this category). In these cases, because not all of the work was done by the KDE group, we also need permission from the author of the original software (GV in this case) to link against the GPL-incompatible software. [Personally, I think if you wrote the software yourself and link it against Qt, it's pretty obvious from a legal standpoint that you accept people linking it against Qt. I think so too. So why not just exclude kgv and kfloppy and distribute the rest? However, if you take someone else's software and do the same thing, I can't see how we (or anyone else) can interpret that as acceptable. A lot of people have made a possibly erroneous assumption that authors like that of GV won't consider linking against Qt an abuse, and there are plenty of fat targets out there for a lawsuit (Corel, Red Hat, Caldera...).] Ciao, Andreas
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Jan 30, Andreas Pour wrote: [Personally, I think if you wrote the software yourself and link it against Qt, it's pretty obvious from a legal standpoint that you accept people linking it against Qt. I think so too. So why not just exclude kgv and kfloppy and distribute the rest? Because I'm not part of the Cabal (TINC). Seriously, it's the contrast between a meritless lawsuit and no lawsuit at all. Meritless lawsuits are expensive; we'll get back to you after we IPO. Ask the css-auth victims... (I guess I'm missing the reason why it's so hard to get people to explicitly say you can link this against Qt; that apparently would satisfy the FTP maintainers and let KDE 1 into contrib [and KDE 2 into main]). Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence| It's 2/3 of a beltway... | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lordsutch.com/tn385/ | | || | Open Directory Editor| Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | http://dmoz.org/ | * http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ * | =
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 06:19:12PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: To be fair, people were offended by the Debian statement that distributing KDE is unlawful and to a lesser extent by the tirades offered by *some* Debian developers. Being offended isn't going to solve any real problem. The fundamental legal problem is that the GPL licenses require non-prioritary distribution, but allows commercial distribution, while the Qt licenses are proprietary to Troll but allow non-commercial distribution. Some people see this and say: look, both allow non-commercial distribution, what's the problem? But that's not a solution anymore than being offended is a solution. Debian is not obligated to distribute KDE. Agreed, except to the extent Debian has the self-imposed obligation to supply its users with the best Open Source software packages :-). Users are our priority, but the software needs to be 100% free, and we don't hide problems. I think the success of Stormix Linux and Corel Linux prove that a huge demand exists for KDE with Debian. Agreed. (2) a maintainer who is interested in supporting it, and I think Ivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been maintaining KDE packages for potato and slink, and has made them available at ftp://ftp.us.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/1.1.2/distribution/deb/, and I believe http://ftp.workspot.com/pub/kde/debian/. I also think Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been involved. Other people that might be interested include Bernd and Russell. If none of these gentlemen is willing and able I am quite confident a cross-post on debian-devel and kde-devel will turn up someone who is. That's up to them to decide, of course. (3) real permission to distribute from the authors. I do not quite know what you mean by this, but if you mean that to conform to your practice noted above of confirming from package authors that packages can be distributed by Debian, I will see if I can get the core KDE developers to send you their approval that you distribute KDE code. Mail me privately please if you think it is worth any effort and I will get started on it. It's not me personally that needs permission, it's the entire world. [Which means that mailing you privately for me to get private permission isn't worth any effort.] And, the most troubling packages are packages which were not written by the core developers but were written by other people before the KDE project began, and then were converted to support Qt. Looking at the ls-lr.gz site, I no longer see the packages which were written by third parties, so maybe this problem has been solved. If that's the case (and it's not simply package name drift), then the biggest problem is gone. I don't think that KDE binaries which use the current Qt can go in Debian's main, but if the packages are put together properly they'll have sufficient permissions in the the copyright file to at least allow them to be distributed in non-free. However, using http://ftp.workspot.com/pub/kde/debian/dists/potato/kde/binary-i386/x11/kdebase_1.1.2-2112-1_i386.deb as an example, I don't see any such permission from the core developers. And, I do see that kvt (one of those packages which was originally developed by a third party) is included in kdebase. It's very likely that the original author of kvt would give permission to relicense the software under the terms of the Qt license, but the current permissions on kvt are sufficient to distribute it under non-free. [non-free is suitable for distributing software under non-commercial only licenses.] Anyways, the package maintainer needs to put the legal permission to distribute in the copyright file before we could even put kdebase under non-free. At the moment, 2 and 3 both look like problems. Easily solved ones. Are there no other obstacles? Ultimately, the only obstacle I'm aware of is the license conflict: GPL is a non-proprietary license while Qt is proprietary software. One other issue is that debian is currently frozen (no new packages), so KDE probably won't be going out on the next cdrom (not that non-free goes on the cdroms anyways) -- but this is more of a quality control issue than a legal permissions issue. And it's certainly not an obstacle for getting kde included in debian. -- Raul
Re: Was Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 05:01:54AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: Seriously, it's the contrast between a meritless lawsuit and no lawsuit at all. Meritless lawsuits are expensive; we'll get back to you after we IPO. Ask the css-auth victims... It's not just the lawsuit threat. It's also the ethics of the situation. We have a social contract, and to violate it would change debian into something that most of us would not be happy with. Think about what it would do to our reputation, and our own opinion of ourselves, if we distributed software where the authors haven't granted permission to distribute it. Now, for most of the kde software, I understand that all the authors have given sufficient permissions to distribute. If this is the case, the problem is merely that the kde package maintainer hasn't included this permission in the copyright file. -- Raul
