Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
> >The only mention made of a library in the GPL is to suggest that
> >you may want to use the LGPL if you're writing a library. So you're
> >introducing a bogus distinction here. If your logic is correct when
> >applied to libraries it must be equally correct when not applied to
> >libraries, and vice versa. So there's nothing new introduced in your
> >third case.
>
> In the third case, the distinction between dynamic and static linking
> is irrelevant.
It's always irrelevant. The GPL makes no mention of static vs. dynamic
linking. Whatever is true for dynamic linking is therefore true for
static linking.
> >Do you see what it says here? There's *no* requirement that the work
> >be a single binary. There's *no* requirement that the work be shipped
> >in its entirety. There's not even an implication that a work would not
> >encompass multiple files. What matters is that the work as a whole must
> >meet the minimum standards set forth in the GPL.
> >
> >In the case of KDE, we are talking about works which, when taken as
> >a whole, are made up of Qt, of GPLed code, and whatever else.
>
> But, as I pointed out, clause 2 only applies to modifications; we do not
> modify KDE in any way.
That's not true, when uncompressed the diffs against kdebase are about
160k.
Also, I believe that under copyright law adding to a copyrighted work is
considered to be a modification of that work. But I am not a lawyer and
it's possible that I'm wrong on this point.
> You have separated the second part of my posting (which refers to the
> general problems of applying the GPL when modifying other people's
> code) and made it apply to KDE, to which I made it clear it does not
> apply.
I think you need to check a few more facts.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: