Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> 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).
However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
those services: A very different thing.
> note that the GPL does not distinguish between static and dynamic
> linking.
It distinguishes between separate distribution and distribution "as
part of" A. Not entirely the same thing, but not terribly different
either.
> RMS, the author of the GPL (whose opinion, therefore, is just
> more authoritative on this subject than yours), has pointed this out on
> numerous occasions.
rms, you and I are all simple persons and speak with the same
authority. Only a court speaks with special authority.
> 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?
Is that really not obvious to you?
--Arnt
Reply to: