Files in kdenonbeta/gadget

Zack Rusin zack at
Sun May 9 22:46:19 BST 2004

On Sunday 09 May 2004 15:27, Russell Miller wrote:
> Google is google and KDE is KDE.  Google's caches of these pages do
> not expose KDE to liability.  KDE hosting them on the server does. 
> Google can take care of themselves.

So what you're saying is that basically there's no answer, we just have 
two standards because people say so.

> > Besides what makes you think that it's not OK to distribute those
> > files? The copyright is there, they don't influence anything
> > because they're not used by anything and all search engines are
> > already distributing them.
> Sorry, Zack, but I must disagree with you here (not as if anyone
> cares :). Hosting copyrighted files on a server without a valid
> license to do so is a cut-and-dried violation, and definitely exposes
> KDE to liability.  

You don't disagree with me on anything you're just stating your opinion, 
which is the same as mine, but doesn't answer any of my questions. I 
simply want to know what makes it OK for others to do it but not for 
us. I want to make it very clear that I'm not arguing for those files 
or anything like that, I'd just like find out what makes it OK for 
others and not OK for us. And no, "google is google, kde is kde" is not 
a logical answer. 
I'd really appreciate if someone with some deeper insight into those 
things could answer that question for me.


People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because
its easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs. 

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list