Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
> Those who have been arguing for a strict interpretation of the GPL
> object to my insisting that additional clauses should be implied by
> the behaviour of the authors; consistency requires the same here - if
> the actual words of the GPL do not exclude dynamic linking, which they
> do not, dynamic linking must be allowed, in the absence of an explicit
> statement to the contrary from the authors.
This discussion is rapidly becoming fruitless.
Yes, dynamic linking is allowed. The GPL does not forbid dynamic linking
(why would it?). But the point is that for kde it's obvious that the
only thing that makes the software work is dynamic linking with qt.
[And I have been ignoring C++ code which is compiled into the binaries
because it's defined in the qt headers -- which is even stronger than
static linking.]
> That is my point. Its drafting did not contemplate dynamic libraries
> and it really does not cover the point.
This is completely bogus. Take a look at the work RMS was doing in
the 70s. Or read the license, and note how careful it is to use
phrases such as "work as a whole".
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: