On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 08:23:43PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > The license issue seems controversial at least. Personally I would > > be willing to assume an implicit exception for Qt in the KDE license, > > except that the KDE developers refuse to add that exception explicitly. > > They've had ample opportunity. > > And except that the license is bogus when it comes to modifying it and > having someone else redistribute it. So KDE gives a special exception: > do people who have modified the code have the right to also give that > special exception? Or are they bound by the license? > > If they're bound by the license, what good is the exception? I don't know what good it is---however, RMS -HAS- said that the exception is considered additional rights IN ADDITION to those of the GPL. ie, you have the right to use this program under the terms of the GPL -AND- you have the right to also use it with Qt even though the GPL does not grant this right. The KDE people have implicitly granted the right to use Qt again and again. They have not expressly written it, but there's enough evidence that they have granted the right implicitly to satisfy the question in my mind. I'd rather express permission, but it's no reason to pull it from hamm on that basis. On the former issue---KDE is now 1.0---so the older version in hamm is pointless anyway.
Description: PGP signature