On Tue, Sep 08, 1998 at 05:33:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 1998 at 06:42:18PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > > I would assume that anyone that has actually examined the GPL would find > > > their use of it somewhere between misguided and reprehensible. > > Stephen J. Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > I personally don't.... > > I just see it as some programmers wanted to write their suit of > > programs, and decided to use a library which was non-free because it > > met their needs the best. They chose the GPL as a licence for their > > code because they wanted their software to be free.... > > > > I don't see that as reprehensible... > > Er.. but are you also saying that that's not misguided? > > [Or are you merely implying that you didn't read that part of Phil's > sentence?] I read it... actually...I did reply to that part of it but deleted it ecuase I wasn't sure how to word it... yes it is a bit misguided. They shouldn't have chosen the GPL...but they did. The GPL tends to be touted as the epitome of a free software licence...and many people tend to use it "by default". If it wasn't misguided and teh conflics were constructed purposfully... or if the KDE people were themselves profitting from QT directly (like in the sens ethat they developed QT and made it non-free themselves) THAT would be an abuse of the GPL and reprehensible... But yes...it is still misguided. -Steve -- /* -- Stephen Carpenter <email@example.com> --- <firstname.lastname@example.org>------------ */ E-mail "Bumper Stickers": "A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!" "honk if you Love Linux"
Description: PGP signature