Re: KDE et al may not incorporate other people's GPL'd code
Paul Seelig:
> ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> > If I find that anyone has taken some of my GPL'd code and put it into a
> > Qt-dependent program I _will_ insist that they do not distribute the
> > result until they have replaced my code or made their program not
> > depend on Qt.
>
> IMHO you are exaggerating.
What do you think I'm exaggerating ? My moral or legal case ?
My legal case is pretty watertight. You feel like trying me ?
Go on punk, make my day.
I'm not interested in an argument about what free software is or is
not about. The fact of the matter is that including normal GPL'd code
in Qt-dependent applications is a violation of the GPL, and thus a
violation of copyright law.
I happen also to feel that the inclusion of GPL'd code in Qt-dependent
applications is a bad thing - sufficiently bad that I'm willing to sue
over it if necessary, and will encourage others to do the same.
> This attitude is contrary to the spririt
> of free software. Free software means that anybody can reuse your
> code for any project as long as the sources stay available.
No, free software means many different things to many different
people. That's why in my posting I said:
} } [1] `free' according to the FSF's definition.
I'm not interested in yet another argument over the definition of
`free'. I happen to like my one, and I'm using the GPL to help
enforce my own definition of freedom as it pertains to my code.
Furthermore, I think that, in the absence of information to the
contrary, we should assume that other authors who GPL their code mean
precisely the restrictions described in the GPL. Noone should feel
free to do things that the GPL does not permit just because they think
that it is somehow more true to whatever they think of as `free
software'. If you want to do something to someone's GPL'd code that
the GPL doesn't permit you should go and ask permission.
Of course, if someone takes my code and puts it into their Qt
application then the _complete sources are not available_.
> So i hope you'll do this as well for Motif based programs so that you
> stay on the morally clean side. Come on, this is ridiculous!
Yes, I will do this for Motif based programs, at least on Linux
systems. (Not necessarily for dynamically-linked Motif-based binaries
targeted at specific other Unices, if those specific other Unices
normally come with Motif - see the GPL s.3 para.5 for details.)
However, this is unlikely to be a problem because Motif isn't marketed
as being `free' and isn't likely to have large amounts of the Linux
community's volunteer programming effort locked into it.
Ian.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . Trouble?
e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: