Re: [Off-topic] Licenses (Was: How to reratify the DFSG ?)
Rev. Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This should also make GPL mods to Mozilla a no-no since that would mean that
> Mozilla would have to be GPL. Mozilla is NOT GPL. However RMS said GPL
> patches to Mozilla was still possible. Why is it possible for Mozilla and
> not for Qt?
Er.. the GPL does NOT require that other people's work be licensed
under the GPL. The GPL requires that if you ship the two works together
that it be LEGAL to ship the other work under the TERMS of the GPL.
See the difference?
Also, you can, at least in principle, port Mozilla to the 8-1/2
windowing system (or mgr, or whatever), you're not allowed to do that
with Qt.
> > I won't be touching it in a hurry though.
> If you ask me, this is more a problem in the GPL than a problem in Qt.
> Yes Qt is not free, but by your own point you cannot use even public
> domain code in a GPL program because the public domain code is not
> able to fit the GPL license. (how can it? It has no copyright and is
> owned by "the public".) Perhaps that's an extreme example, but not
> allowing code that is say X or BSD licensed is a real limitation.
Public domain code has a license that says that anyone may do
whatever they please with it, so there's no restriction there.
And, of course, you can ship GPL'd code which is linked with X code
and BSD code without any problems. The terms required by the GPL
are satisfied by both the X and the BSD licenses.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: