Re: (Was: How to reratify the DFSG ?)
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 02:59:27AM +0000, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 09:16:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
The license of Mozilla is very complicated, but tries to find a way for free
software to flow in.
The license of Qt makes it clear that Qt is not free. In my opinion (and
this depends only on the interpretation of the GPL regarding shared
libraries), KDE people can't use GPL programs from different sources,
because the author could sue KDE for linking their GPL program with a
But there is no way one could sue KDE for writing GPL'ed programs using Qt.
It is a one-way direction: Everyon can use KDE's programs (for example the
Gnome project), but KDE can't legally implement other programs (for example the
Gimp) in Qt (without permission of the author). This is why KDE/Qt will
probably die in the long run as a free software project (or Qt will become
completely free before).
If you want discuss this topic with me, it is probably better to move to private
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org