Re: A simple mistake (was Re: Should we ship KDE in hamm?)
Raul Miller wrote:
>This discussion is rapidly becoming fruitless.
I fear so...
>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 does change things (though not, I contend, for KDE itself, because of
the other factors I have mentioned previously).
>> 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".
It doesn't matter what RMS was doing. What matters (as you have said) is
what the licence actually says. A licensee cannot be expected to have
background knowledge that isn't obvious from the context. It's particularly
irrelevant when it is not RMS doing the licensing. As for 'the work as
a whole', this is another phrase whose meaning a court will have to
interpret in the circumstances of a particular case. I don't think you
could argue that the C library is part of a work as a whole; therefore it
is arguable that no external library is. Libraries could be regarded merely
as facilities that are available for use, like the X server or the machine
memory.
What all this amounts to is that free software licensing is in a confused
state and is likely to remain so until someone is willing to spend his
money on a court case. Even that will only settle it for one country.
Here are some consequences of treating shared libraries as incorporated
in a work:
An HP-UX user converts a GPL program to run with Motif. That is OK
because Motif is always supplied with HP-UX. He can legally distribute
his work to someone running Linux, but that person cannot distribute it
in turn.
Qt is always supplied with Caldera, so it is probably OK to link someone's
GPL program with Qt on Caldera, and to transfer it to someone running
Debian or Red Hat. However, Debian and Red Hat could not distribute it
in turn.
These consequences may well be intended if RMS is the original author,
but they are not at all likely to be intended if the original author
himself used Motif or Qt.
Moral: don't license your programs under GPL unless you intend this kind
of consequence.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Galatians 6:7
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: