Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net> wrote:
> > Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> > putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
>
> It is if KDE remains under the GPL -- otherwise, no.
>
> > Or would a "simple" GPL-and-link to-QT License alteration sofice ?
>
> Huh?
Basically the GPL with a provision to allow linking to QT. For the bulk
of KDE that isn't needed since it was WRITTEN to use QT. This is an
"implicit declaration" ( I think that's the term ).
For those items which were not initially written with QT in mind a
statement
from the authors is needed.
Essentially in the end the headers and whatnot will read "This
application
is licensed under the GPL. We also allow linking it to code licensed
under the QPL version 1.0".
I was told a long time ago this was what debian wanted ( before QPL was
mentioned ).
> > I ask because the only item of concern for KDe are those few apps
> > which have some GPLed code from other developers built in. ( KFloppy
> > comes to mind ).
>
> > Can someone compile a listing of those authors for so they can all be
> > asked to allow such a provision ?
>
> I started to, last summer. I gave up after getting a few dozen authors,
> and I ran out of time for that kind of research. Someone else in Debian
> was going to continue the work of compiling the names, but I forget who
> it was...
Find out who is doing it. If nobody is culd you send me what you have
compiled so far. I culd take over since it's simply a mater of
logistics.
> > I personally can't see why any would refuse. Those who did would
> > likely be a small minority with a limited amount of code. I.e.
> > Somebody could rewrite those sections.
>
> They might want to hold off until Qt is available under the new license
> [and/or until the license stops changing]. But, yeah, the license drafts
> have seemed, to me, to be fairly reasonable.
Nope. I want them discusing it now when they can influence what the
final QPL says.
Reply to: