Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:40:27AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using
> > > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
> > >
> > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem
> > > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem
> > >
> > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt
> > > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE
> > > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the
> > > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to
> > > give up being able to use GPL'd code.
> >
> > ok...unixODBC say's this:
> >
> > * All programs are GPL. *
> > * All libs are LGPL
> >
> > so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs
> > would be non-free...(or just not distributed)...
>
> Since I have no idea what the HELL you're talking about, I can only assume
> you're talking about mixing GPL and LGPL licenses. If you are, I suggest
> reading the LGPL sometime.
unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use
those libraries. The libraries are LGPL'd and the apps are GPL'd. They
are also linked to libqt2.1.
I'm trying to find out if packages I create can be uploaded to Debian or not.
:)
Ivan
--
----------------
Ivan E. Moore II
rkrusty@tdyc.com
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Reply to: