[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KDE liscence question



/*
 * PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take this off -devel!  Mail-Followup-To and
 * Reply-To have both been set.  If your mail reader still does not do
 * the right thing it is most likely BRAIN DEAD and you should replace
 * it immediately!
 */

On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:42:03PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> The new qt has a free licenze. Thus is goes into main, thus it is a
> system library, or not?
> 
> GPL programs may link against system libraries, even if they are not
> gpl, so kde is fine for main.
> 
> The only thing we need now is a kde that compiles with qt2.

nonono..  Let me quote the relevant paragraph:

  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.  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.

(emphasis added)


That last part makes a KDE linked with Qt undistributable by us if we
call Qt part of the "major components" (I would argue X itself is not a
major component personally) simply because we happen to be planning ti
distribute it with Qt.  This is what I mean when I call the GPL
"antisocial"..  I can see quite clearly why this was done and I can see
where it might be very important for such a restriction.  However all I
can do is pound my head against the wall because people continually quote
half the sentance and ignore the other half.

I'm not going to debate whether or not this clause is a good thing. 
Personally I think that whole paragraph needs to be split in half and
written more sanely, but it's not my license and I can't change it at
will.  The best I can do is write something which doesn't have that evil
clause and suggest the KDE people adopt it.  They've been willing to
entertain the idea in the past and I'm hoping they still are.  I just
need to finish writing it and convince them it's A Good Thing.  =>


I think RMS should be fwopped with the biggest Pool Noodle available for
letting that clause get written into the GPL in that manner it was in the
first place.  It's only caused pain and suffering and for my hair to turn
white.  Oh wait, my hair already was white...  Ahem, well then.

--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Turken thinks little kids are absolutely adorable... especialyy when
  they're someone elses.

Attachment: pgpnkENFdpimU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: