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

Re: KDE questions

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:07:32AM +0200, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> There is also "relicense-resistant" code which is written by developers
> who

I presume you meant "developers who either... or ... or ...".

>  - have no problem with their code being used in KDE because they have
>    written it only for KDE (and want it to be linked to Qt for this reason)

Those will agree to adding the clause to GPL.

>  - do want their code be licensed under GPL

Their code will still be licensed under GPL. The clause about linking to QT
won't make the rest of GPL go away. :)

>  - will not accept a patched GPL with exception clause for their code

Those are currently against using their code in KDE, then. That code someone
will simply have to rewrite, i.e. reimplement, with the different license.

Maybe you really meant people who think all three of these things? That
would be really strange!

> Basically, the only way out for Debian & KDE I see is: package what you
> can, and don't package what you can't, and try to improve the share you
> can package by gradually convincing developers that if they change their
> license, you'll be able to distribute their code.

Do you know how much of KDE is legally `clean'? All of KDE is pretty large
these days, so we could use any help from someone who knows more about KDE

> Maybe you could also discuss packaging code which was only written for the
> sole purpose to be run with KDE.

Everyone knows there's an implicit permission to link most of the KDE GPL
code with QT -- but such code is still legally not possible to distribute
due to conflicting licenses. The permission must be given explicitely,
otherwise, it's forbidden. That's the law, I think (although IANAL).

Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Reply to: