Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
> KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
> In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
> its terms, to apply to Qt.
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
without additional permission being granted by the author (unless, of
course, you are the author).
note that the GPL does not distinguish between static and dynamic
linking. RMS, the author of the GPL (whose opinion, therefore, is just
more authoritative on this subject than yours), has pointed this out on
note also, that this license conflict is only with regard to
distribution of the derived work. what you do on your own machine is
your concern. the GPL does not restrict usage or modification in any
way, it only restricts re-distribution in order to preserve the free
status of GPLed software.
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license"? How does it hurt them to do that? it's not difficult to do,
and it would solve the problem for everyone. it would clarify their
apparent intention, without harming them in any way. it would give
debian (and others) the legal permission they seek to distribute the KDE