On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 08:51:39PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > I would like to close this pandora's box before it wreaks any more havok. > > > > Currently, the QPL (QT 2.0's license) is incompatible with the GPL. > > > > Most KDE apps/components are licensed under the GPL; however, 100% of them > > are linked to Qt. > > > > Hence, it's illegal to redistribute any binaries whatsoever. > > > > Yes, this problem is being dealt with. However, it takes some time to track > > down every single developer in a project and convince them to accept an > > amendment to their software's license. Note the fix is surprisingly trivial. > > I havent followed the recent discussion on this topic and from reading the > QPL explecitly i havnt found any problems as long as you dont incorporate > qt code into gpl programs and vice versa ... This is the case if > you do dynamic linking although this is also a discussion topic. Following the logic that since KDE programs are GPL (mostly) and that linking them with Qt does combine the code, there is the incompatibility. As you say, this is a hotly debated topic and I still haven't heard anyone come back with a lawyer's opinion on that.. =p > IIRC the problem was from history that debian could not distribute qt in the > main tree though making kde depend on non-free software. From the QPL itself > i understand that it is "open-source" software now but i am unsure how > it complies to the debian-free-software-definition. That would have put KDE in contrib (which is where it was originally) if there were no other problems. Qt2 is suitable for main just fine. KDE isn't, which is kinda sad because KDE and Qt2 both have free licenses. Free yes. Compatible no. > But with releasing qt unter the QPL wouldnt it be allowed in the main tree > and thought kde be distributeable with debian easily in main ? You are missing the point. The KDE license (the GPL) says that you may not link KDE with non-GPL code. The QPL is not the GPL. This is a "design feature" of the GPL according to the RMS camp, and is the whole of the "GPL virus" according to the BSD camp. ANYTHING GPL can only be linked with the GPL. Or any license which may essentially become GPL (including now the BSD license since it no longer features the advertising clause) The QPL is similar to the GPL in many ways, but the GPL demands that it be identical. Therefore the problem lies in the KDE license (the GPL in this case) not Qt's license and it's up to the KDE Copyright holders to fix it. They're not in any major hurry. > If i am starting old discussions does anyone have pointers to > QPL vs. GPL reviews ? See the list archives for debian-legal. It was discussed at length. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Shinobi> There are worse things than Perl....ASP comes to mind
Attachment:
pgp9K_g1s7tnn.pgp
Description: PGP signature