Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
> > 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.
>
> Indeed Qt is not part of the problem
indeed
> > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a
> > whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
> > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
> > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
> > and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> >
> > Qt is not distributed as part of KDE. It is distributed as part of
> > various distributions that also include the KDE, but only by "mere
> > aggregation [...] on a volume of a storage or distribution medium"
> > which the GPL okays elsewhere in the text.
>
> It is not a mere aggregation. If I remove Qt KDE is unusable.
I note here, a point that most ppl probably know: It is certainly not the
fault of the Qt ppl that KDE would be unusable without Qt's presence. Qt is
not owned by the KDE ppl, so Qt folx should not be affected by KDE's
decision to use KDE. If, on the other hand, Qt decides to say that they
"like" (whatever that means, and in whatever form it comes) KDE's use of Qt,
then at that point, they are possibly in it together. For example, if Qt does
anything to facilitate KDE's success in its present (with-Qt) state, then
I would take on the opinion that they are both in the situation together, and
responsible for the results thereof. (Like my opinion means anything :)
> KDE requires Qt currently. So KDE is non free.
_No_. This does not necessarily follow, even if both statements may
both be true. KDE simply depends on something that is non-free. If KDE
itself can be (1) obtained in source, (2) altered and then (3)
redistributed in its altered form and (4) have all these with the only
restriction being that further restriction cannot be applied, it is
free. If it presently depends on something that is non-free, we know
the drill: the source is available. Therefore, anyone can fix it.
> Similarly Linus does not distribute KDE with the kernel so its not in
> the base distribution.
I see your point here as "KDE does not come with the linux os (that being
the kernel) therefore the clause in the GPL, making an exception for a piece
of software included with an OS, does not apply." I would agree, however we
should watch this MicroSoft lawsuit carefully: it might redefine what can be
considered part of an OS. (Of course, it won't change what Linus distributes.)
I would make the same observation about Qt: Linus doesn't distribute Qt
with the kernel either. So KDE would have a reason to not assume the exception
in the GPL wrt Qt.
> On Solaris KDE is shipped even though no Sun
> product includes Qt. So the case there is even more blatant
Could you elaborate a bit here, if only addressing the elaboration to me?
why is this more blatent?
-Jim
Reply to: