Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any
> way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source
> code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is
> one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the GPL.
Correct, as long as you don't distribute the modifications.
> the problem arises when you compile and link with a non-free library (e.g.
> Qt or Xforms). doing that creates a combined work (the binary) which is a
> derivative of both GPL-ed code and non-free code. if you don't wish to
> distribute this derived work then there is still no problem.
Again, correct, as that violates section 3 of the GPL. Note, however,
this is not the only form of non-freeness which the GPL forbids you
from distributing.
> (as a side note, this is complicated in the case of KDE because KDE has
> re-used some existing GPL code and linked it to Qt. While they have every
> right under the GPL to modify the source to do that, the GPL prohibits
> them from legally distributing binaries until they receive permission from
> the original author(s))
The GPL also forbids them from distributing the modified sources.
Oddly enough, this may go away if some OS makes Qt a part of its
standard components. [Note that such a distributor could not then
legally distribute KDE, nor any other purely GPLed code which uses Qt,
with the its OS.]
At the moment, it's up in the air whether all the variant linux
distributions qualify as distinct OSes. [This is not defined in
the GPL, and would take a court case to resolve -- note that a
court would not attempt to come up with some generally useful
definition of an operating system but would come up with something
specific to the context of the court case.]
--
Raul
Reply to: