Re: KDE not in Debian?
Raul Miller wrote:
> > So, if I take someone else's GPLed code, and add it to Qt, I have
> > to re-release it under terms that say that Troll can re-release it
> > under non-GPLed terms.
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 11:19:58AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> But if I take QPLd code and add it to your GPLd application, you will
> demand that I release it under the terms of the GPL. Why is it bad
> that Troll gets to choose their licensing terms for their works, but
> good if you choose your licensing terms for yours?
I didn't say say that it is bad that Troll gets to choose their
licensing terms for their works.
The GPL forbids combining GPLed code with proprietary code. Qt is
proprietary code.
What I don't understand is why Troll announced that the new QPL would be
GPL compatible.
> If you submit a bug fix to one of my applications, which are under the
> BSDL, I will refuse them if you insist that your fixes be GPLd.
That's fine with me. And, I'll be careful to not submit such bug fixes
to you.
But KDE doesn't refuse bug fixes (nor even entire applications) which
are GPLed.
And the people who were working on fixing the problem (the Harmony
folks) got no encouragement from the KDE folks and eventually just gave
up with Troll announced that they would issue a new QPL that would be
compatible with the GPL.
It would be legal to distribute GPLed KDE if it worked with Harmony.
Even if people wanted to use Qt, that would be a personal choice, not
their only option.
> I will not let you subvert my copyright or licensing. Just as I have
> to follow your rules when working on your applications, you have to
> follow my rules with my stuff, and follow Trolls rules for Qt. I just
> don't see what the problem is.
You don't see what the problem is.
You *refuse* to accept even bug fixes that are GPLed, but you don't see
what the problem is.
I take it that there's no basis for your refusal then?
--
Raul
Reply to: