Re: KDE liscence question
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> 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.
Thats the brainddead part of gpl and to make the GPL less
"antisocial", defining main as the major components of the Debian
system, which they are anyway, is the right thing in my view.
If "major components" are defined that way, we can distribute kde with
debian, because it then only links against a major component (qt),
which is allowed. Since kde is distributed as single bz2/rpm/deb files
and qt is distributed by Troll, qt doesnt count as acompaning kde.
All of this of causes needs a qt in main.
> 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. =>
The Kde people themself could kill themself for using GPL, but they
didn't know better and now you can't change it, because you can never
be sure to get written permission form every and any one who has
written maybe only a single line for kde to change to something
similar to GPL.
> 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.
You could loose it. :) Don't worry too much.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: