Re: (Was: How to reratify the DFSG ?)
Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But according to RMS, since Qt is NOT GPL, they can't write GPL'd
> programs for Qt.
I think you've mis-interpreted rms, and I really wish you'd read the
licenses for yourself. However, one more try at addressing the points
It's not because Qt is not GPL -- BSD is not GPL, and you can link GPL'd
code with BSD code. The problem is that if you linked GPL'd code with
Qt code then distributed the result as the GPL specifies Troll-Tech (or
whoever owns the license at the time) could sue you, and would probably
> How one cannot do this for Qt but CAN for Mozilla I question.
Then why not read that license, too? You *can* redistribute Mozilla,
it wouldn't be the official distribution, but if even if Netscape is
purchased by Microsoft (or whoever) tomorrow, you'll still be able to
redistribute browsers derived from the Mozilla code base.
> 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.
It's not idealism, it's a simple statement that Mozilla's license is
free enough while Qt's license is not.
> > 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.
Then why not read the licenses?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org