I've taken the GPL to my uncle who's a corprate lawyer here in Nevada... He's not a developer and most of his customers are in the casinos and such but here are his opinions based on the copy of GPL in /usr/doc/copyright of Debian 1.3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: But First! I have to state that *I* am not the lawyer and all I am relaying is an opinion based on an informal conversation with a relative. This is not binding "legal advise". My uncle is like most lawyers, he'd be willing to offer formal legal advise if his fee were to be paid. Some pitfalls: His experience is Nevada, not US nevermind international. I could have a faulty understanding of the situation. Still, this opinion should be more sound than some of the half-guesses must of us try. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Article 3, "...any associated interface definition files...." can refer to the header files that interface the individual source files for "the program" itself.. the internal ones. The next sentance, talking about major componants could include Qt (and xforms and other such libraries that are independent projects.. KDE doesn't bundle Qt with it, do they?). The GPL doesn't state in there the need of all linked libraries to be GPL and the last paragraph of Article 2 (starts with "In addition, mere aggregation...") states that any external work included with the program (such as other libraries) do not have to have GPL imposed upon them just because KDE is GPL. ---------------------------------- http://benham.net/index.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++ E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ----------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpPwIjWaq2UI.pgp
Description: PGP signature