Re: Debian i386 freeze
> 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.
Fundamentally Untrue.
Just try exercising your GPL given right to port KDE to Windows NT and see how
long it takes Troll to unleash the lawyers.
> > 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".
There is information in the binary that originated from Qt code, and could not
have been produced without the Qt libraries present, so that binary contains
portions of information that is covered by the Qt copyright.
It's action when the library is absent, is to inform you of the missing
library name. A name that originates in the Qt proprietary code. So it is
still performing a function, and that function is dependent upon Qt source.
Check out clause 7 of the GPL, and tell me how the ``no modification'' clause
of Qt's licence doesn't constitute a contradiction with the right to modify
that the GPL confers.
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: