Re: KDE vs. Debian GPL-statements (Fwd: Re: proposal of a paragraph of GPL v.3)
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 08:43:26AM +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I've contacted RMS on the issue of the GPL-conflict in KDE. As I interpret
> the first paragraph in his answer it should be ok for all Code that was
> originated in the KDE project, because the authors did intend to link against
> Qt. Problematic may be all the code outside of it like the ghostview code in
> kghostview. One had to check the licenses of these code parts to allow
> Qt-linkage.
Correct. For KDE-written code the additional clause we've asked for is
pretty easy to add (and may not be necessary, but we'd like it added
anyway for clarity..)
> I believe KDE is not the only project which might have such problems and it
> will probably become even trickier the more and the more complex software
> will appear as free software/open source. I think we have to find an easy
> _and_ good solution for that, how long it will ever take....
You are right. It's something I feel that nobody else really cares about.
I've tried to help change that, but at least with KDE my success has been
dismal.
[ "> " is Richard below, "> " is Konrad ]
> Debian seems to state that it might be a violation of plain, unmodified
> GPL to link against Qt.
>
> That is true. However, if the authors of the program clearly intended
> it to be linked against Qt, I would say they have given some kind of
> implicit permission for people to do that.
I tend to agree. It's better to have it in writing for a project the size
of KDE though, especially since KDE currently has problems with code KDE
didn't write.
> Following common practice of all
> other GPL'ed project it seems to be ok to link even against proprietary
> libc-versions.
>
> The GPL explicitly gives permission for this narrow exception.
Provided that the propritary libc and GPL'd software are not distributed
together. The GPL explicitly prohibits this to create the problem pointed
out below..
[ minor reformatting ]
> My proposal is to add a section to GPL which clearifies how term
> "modification" should be threated. It should just express common
> practice: "linking and using a GPL'ed program/lib from a non-GPL'ed
> one is prohibited, but using a library of any license from a GPL'ed
> program/lib is ok".
>
> This would introduce a giant loophole. For example, suppose you want to
> make a proprietary extension in GCC. So you make your code (or the guts
> of it) into a library and invoke this exception. No way!
Several people on this list have argued this loophole exists today. It
doesn't, but they argue that it does anyway. =p Such arguments were
re-used by the QuakeLives project (a project which was in "competition
with"(?) QuakeForge, which I run) including referencing KDE as "proof"
that they could put all of their code into a win32 (only) DLL file and
simply link it together. This ain't cool with the GPL, but they claimed
they could do it because KDE does.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
I'd been hearing all sorts of gloom and doom predictions for Y2K, so I
thought I'd heed some of the advice that the experts have been giving:
Fill up the car's gas tank, stock up on canned goods, fill up the bathtub
with water, and so on.
I guess I wasn't fully awake when I completed my preparations late last
night. This morning I found the kitchen shelves soaked in gasoline, water
in the car's gas tank, and my bathtub filled with baked beans.
-- Dan Pearl in a message to rec.humor.funny
Reply to: