On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 09:16:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > It could be argued the GPL discriminates against people writing > > programs for Qt. In fact, RMS argues that it does. Clearly he is > > discriminating against both KDE in his current interpretation which is > > a turnaround from the things he was saying before that about netscape. > > That's really reaching. There is no language in the GPL which discriminates > against people writing programs for Qt. People writing programs for > Qt are perfectly free to use (and redistribute) GPL'd programs. But according to RMS, since Qt is NOT GPL, they can't write GPL'd programs for Qt. How one cannot do this for Qt but CAN for Mozilla I question. Neither are GPL. The fact that RMS has himself said one is okay and another is not is an issue IMO. At this point I will consider this to be simply idealism. But you bet I'm concerned that his idealism may begin to hurt more than help. THAT is what I am worried about. > > The particular example was that GPL additions for non-GPL code > > (Mozilla) could be written in seperate files and later compiled/linked > > in. However, saying that KDE cannot legally use the GPL because it > > links Qt is clearly discrimination--whether it's on the part of the > > license or RMS is something I cannot say for sure. > > I think you're repeating rumor. Qt's license prohibits certain kinds of > distribution, GPL requires that those forms of distribution be legal. If > you can't satisfy the terms of the license you can't redistribute. I'm repeating what he's said directly. He directly said that GPL patches to Mozilla could be written but that GPL'd KDE can't be done. I'd like to know what makes one okay but the other not.
Description: PGP signature