On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 07:16:04PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > > > In the case of KDE, the rights that are supposedly being given are neither > > > > ours, nor the KDE folks' to grant, so the GPL should not be used. > > > > > > > FUD. KDE has the perfect right to apply the GPL to their code. > > > > But not to a binary that includes more than their code. > > > Whether staticly linked or dynamicly linked, the QT copyright holder has > no interest in restricting distribution, and I see nothing in the current > licenses that suggests there is any restriction on distributing binaries > so produced. Their license speaks to commercial development as requiring > extra licensing. the 'problem' is not the qt-licenses. The GPL is the problem. It say: You can't put free (GPL) code and non-free (non GPL) code together. All code must be GPLed! If I get a binary with GPL-Code, the distributor (in this case debian) must me get all source in GPL to make a new (the same) binary. We can't send QT in GPL to our users. We can't distribute KDE as binary. > > > And thus its dependence on non-free code. The KDE source is free by the > > > definition of the DFSG, but can not be included in main because it depends > > > on a non-free library for its construction and use. This is the clear > > > definition of a contrib package. > > > > Yes. The source is free. The binary is not. > > > Says you. I certainly don't see it. You claim that the binary "contains" > proprietary portions of QT. I would claim that it does not. Without the > library installed it will not run. It is the library that is "not free". this is right. The binary is DFSG free. But the licenses from KDE (the GPL) say: we are not allow to distribute the binary! Grisu
Attachment:
pgpNe2PSqENcf.pgp
Description: PGP signature