Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation

[Don Sanders <dsanders@cch.com.au>]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Being concerned with the legality of redistributing KDE linked to QT
> > I consulted a copyright lawyer about Andreas Pour's interpretation
> > given on this list.

> I the potential for problems with this.  For example, directing his
> attention to certain aspects of the license during lunch, you'd likely be
> glossing over what I see as the major flaw of Andreas Pour's argument:
> his concept of what a program is (he seems to think that a program is a
> file, where the GPL indicates that the usual case is that a program is
> a collection of files).

I have been researching your comments. Especially the thread containing this
mail:
   http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00133.html

Am I correct in stating that under your interpretation of the GPL "the
complete source code of a KDE application (that uses QT and hence requires
being linked to QT) includes the QT source code."?

And am I correct in saying that this fact is central to your argument?

BFN,
Don.