Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
Montreal Fri Nov 20 15:31:09 1998
john@dhh.gt.org <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Navindra Umanee writes:
> > Doesn't Qt deserve Motif-like status as a system library?
>
> I think it would have to be at least 'standard' for that.
Standard how? Isn't this what has to be decided? Whether Open Source
Qt can be made a Debian standard so that Open Source software such as
KDE can be shipped?
> > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> > include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> > binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
> > of the operating system on which the executable runs,
>
> > unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think this means that if a GPL-incompatible library becomes a system
> library in an OS no GPL programs can be distributed with the OS. I don't
> think that is what RMS intended, but that's how it reads to me.
No, but wait. Here is the text that precedes the above in the same
paragraph:
<quote>
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
[continued as above]
</quote>
Hence, you can still distribute 'ls' (let's assume that ls is GPL'ed,
I haven't checked) with 'Qt' both of which are completely unrelated.
-N.
Reply to: