Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 06:53:19PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > everybody else has to abide by the terms of the license under which
> > the software is released, and the GPL is quite clear about what
> > you can and can't do. In particular, you have to distribute all
> > of the code under the same terms as the GPL (with an exception
> > for system libraries that normally come with the OS/compiler/etc,
> > *except* when those system libraries are distributed along with the
> > code in question. Qt doesn't qualify because it is not a system
> > library normally distributed with the OS and even if it was, we
> > still wouldn't be allowed to distribute it along with, say, KDE or
> > kgv).
>
> IANAL, but I near as I can figure, Qt is normally distributed with
> my OS. To quote: "...the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed ... with the major components
> ... of the operating system on which the executable runs...". In
> the case of Caldera and Corel, Qt is part of their installation,
> definitely a major component. On my box, KDE itself is a major
> component, and even the default wm/desktop of the distro.
well, for one thing, it's not a "major component of the operating
system" - it might be a major part of the OS's GUI but on unix a GUI is
just another application, not a major part of the OS...but that may be
debatable for some operating systems, so i'm not choosing to argue on
that point. i don't think it's terribly important.
it's not important because it really doesn't matter whether it is or
not. you are either ignoring or are unaware of the remainder of that
paragraph. to quote the GPL:
: 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.
that last part of the last sentence "unless that component itself
accompanies the executable" is significant.
either Qt is NOT "normally distributed...with the major components...of
the operating system", in which case any GPL-ed code linked with it can
only be distributed under the same terms as the GPL, and that can't be
done because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL.
*OR* it IS "normally distributed...", in which case the exception
applies but it still isn't permissible to distribute Qt-linked GPL code
when it is accompanied by Qt.
either way, it is legal to distribute Qt but it is not legal to
distribute GPL-ed code which is linked with Qt (unless, of course, you
are the author or specific permission has been granted allowing you to
do so).
> > other dists may choose to ignore this fact. Debian actually cares
> > about free software and about licenses and we only distribute
> > software when the license allows us to do so.
>
> The other distributions actually *do* care as well.
some obviously don't care enough to take a stand on the issue.
expedience is more important than abiding by the license terms,
especially when it is unlikely that they will ever be sued over it.
> No offense to any Debian developers or users, but Debian is not
> sacred. Attempts to portray it as morally superior to other distros is
> very insulting to developers and users of those distros. A person is
> not morally deficient merely because they reach different conclusions
> than you.
i didn't make any claim that debian's stance was morally superior. i
merely stated 2 facts about debian. i find it it interesting that YOU
read moral superiority into debian's position - is it that you know that
debian is right and has taken the high moral ground?
> > there are two "easy" solutions to this problem:
>
> There is a third way. And that would be for GPLv3 to specifically
> allow dynamic linking to non-GPL libraries.
that is not going to happen because that would give up one of the most
important protections in the GPL. As mentioned in my last message, that
clause is in the GPL deliberately and for a very good reason - without
it, there would be a back-door allowing the wholesale theft of GPL-ed
software into proprietary programs.
there are many ways that KDE and/or Trolltech could have licensed their
software which served their needs WITHOUT being incompatible with the
GPL. They could have done so, but chose not to.
why should the GPL be corrupted merely because some project fails to do
the Right Thing?
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: