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

Re: KDE: a plan how to solve that

[only responding where I think I have something worthwhile..]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 02:36:34PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Too long.  =>  The question was why we don't, not "will you give me a
> philosphy of free software lesson?"

As long as the answer makes sense, feel free to replace that
with whatever you please.

> > =head2 Is it legal to distribute KDE under Solaris?
> > 
> > No, because it's still the same combination of GPL and QPL code.
> Why this question?  Seems irrelivant to me.

Many of the questions I've seen are irrelevant.  They're still

> > =head2 How in the world is KDE abusing the GPL, since they are the licensor?
> > 
> > Two ways:  one, by pretending that the GPL allows proprietary
> > redistribution, and two by pretending that since they can do this with
> > this with code they wrote themselves that they can also do this with
> > other people's code.
> The first part does not apply to the QPL.

QPL is proprietary: 3b+4c mean that if I'm making a change to QPLed code
and that change involves someone else's GPLed code, I have to ensure
that the GPLed code can be relicensed under any terms Troll wants.

Seems to me that this is the major problem with the GPL+QPL combo.

> > =head2 Why did Red Hat start distributing KDE?
> > 
> > Because, supposedly, Troll Tech was going to fix the Qt license so that
> > it wasn't proprietary, and KDE would be using some other license than
> > the GPL.
> Do we have a statement that makes this a fact o is it just what we think?
> If we don't know it for certain we should not claim we do.  =>  That said,
> AFAIK that is why.

Best thing to do is ask the Harmony people.

I remember that the reason Harmony was discontinued was that there
would be no point with the new QPL.  But I don't have any personal email
archives on the subject.


Reply to: