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

Re: Fwd: Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action

On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be
> interesting for you too.

Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been
covered many times already.

> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did mosfet mean:
> > Their position is not even we kde core developers that write all our own
> > original code can link to Qt with an unmodified GPL.

The original author of a piece of code is the copyright holder, and is
therefore not bound by whatever license she chooses to license it under.

For example, as the author of a GPLed program, I can distribute binaries of
it without providing sources, link it against Qt or XForms etc.

> [please someone forward this to debian]
> To clearify some things: Linking to Qt is no violation of the GPL!

That's right. Linking is a /use/ of the software, and the GPL specifically
doesn't cover use.

The issue was and still is that redistribution of binaries of GPL-ed code
linked against Qt by others than the authors of said GPL-ed code (for
example the Debian project) is a violation of the GPL.

> Qt is a Library, that means it is intentionally used by the program. As I
> know common practice the library does not "modify" the program but vice
> versa. Otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to link any GPL program to the
> LGPL'ed glibc or any other libc running on any sytem where GNU software is
> used.

Bad example, for two reasons: the LGPL explicitly allows relicensing as GPL
(which the QPL or Qt1 license don't), and the GPL has specific exemptions
for major system components (like libc), which Qt isn't.

> In any law I know about (at least German ones) there exists a concept called
> "intention". If a programmer writes a program that only runs while certain
> libraries are present it can legally be assumed that it is his intention to
> link the program against the library. You don't need written permission, the
> facts speak for themselves.

So where's the harm in stating the obvious then?

AFAIK KDE still includes GPL-ed code written by third parties where there is
no indication that they intended to allow their code to be linked against

> Qt is nothing else than any kind of libc or compiler internal precompiled
> functions (so called "built-ins", as new/delete for C++).

The GPL makes a difference for "major components", like libc and libstdc++.
It is debatable if e.g. the X Window System libraries, let alone Qt, can be
considered "major components" in this sense.

ART  A friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven years old. 
I'd be interested to hear from him. There are so many pseudos around taking 
his name in vain. 
    - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 

Reply to: