In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to Qt.
Indeed Qt is not part of the problem
indeed
However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
GPL says section of). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
those services: A very different thing.
Qt is part of the derived work. It is
If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I am, I'm not
deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the services. Hence, libc
is a section of the thing I am making, and does not derive from it.
Your program derives from libc by being linked with it. This is precisely
why an
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I
am, I'm not deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the
services. Hence, libc is a section of the thing I am making, and
does not derive from it.
Your program derives from libc by
If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I am, I'm not
deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the services. Hence, libc
is a section of the thing I am making, and does not derive from it.
Your program derives from libc by being linked with it. This is precisely
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
note that there is also an exemption for libraries which normally come
with the operating system - and libc definitely qualifies there...
Nope.
Some of the time, libc would qualify for that special excemption.
But it doesn't qualify for anything shipped
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KDE requires Qt currently. So KDE is non free.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_No_. This does not necessarily follow, even if both statements may
both be true. KDE simply depends on something that is non-free.
Except that KDE programs have been
Jim writes:
So this isn't derivative in the sense of the OOP idiom IS-A...
and you're saying that all I have to do to derive from something, is to
include it unmodified or modified?
In copyright law is a derivative of means contains a copy of all or part
of. Copyright is about making copies.
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
[..]
And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
I fail to see how this is all that
And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
I fail to see how this is all that much different from the GPL
perhaps
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:25:27PM -0700, Alex wrote:
[..]
And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
I fail to
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL has a feature that with the exception of essential system type
libraries (which is IMO far too vague to be terribly useful) any work
derived from the GPL must also be under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really what it says, which is probably
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
[snip]
This GPL argument if taken to it's logical conclusion would
prevent all GPL'ed code from running on any non-GPL'ed OS, as the
applications have to link with the platform libraries, and are
resultantly dependant on the non-GPL'ed OS.
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
and enduser support, not for discussing home-brewed licensing problems of
niche distributions.
Enough said, I think.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
with the operating system itself.
Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
included with that operating system itself.
Debian ships a large number of GPL'd binaries that
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
with the operating system itself.
Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
included with that operating system itself.
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
from clause 3 of the GPL:
I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
work for making
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
That's what he says. That still, however, would not permit
applications distributed with the OS to use Qt. In other words, if
thar paragraph were the big issue, you
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under
the special exception? :)
yes.
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to Qt.
if you link a
Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Indeed. If you read the GPL word for word you will find that a binary
distribution requires ALL libraries to be distributed under the GPL.
Interesting that you do not even quote the GPL to try and back up your
non-arguments.
Martin.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:45:35PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do that? it's not difficult to do,
and it would solve the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:33:15 +1000 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
without additional permission being granted by the
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do that?
Is that really not obvious to you?
Craig Sanders and some
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
think Debian should convert libc
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is
derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL
as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work
without
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked together. Does that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL.
No. It's stricter, it requires that the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of this License. That is, distribut_ed_, not
distribut_able_. Big
Arnt Gulbrandsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
from clause 3 of the GPL:
I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:
The source code for a work means
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
system. therefore the special exception applies.
It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to other applications that are distributed along with,
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL. Do you think that means that I have to
re-license the individual parts?
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
According to
Martin == Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
Martin server? According to several Debian developers Motif is
Martin not a part of the OS.
No. We don't link xemacs with Motif. Besides, since lesstif is a part
of the
On 9 Oct 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
cheThis is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
cheDebian, which technically makes it not part of the operating
chesystem. I'm not sure how that interacts with the GPL.
People keep telling me that you can distribute it with the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
Some people argue that it would. RMS argues
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
without explicit permission by
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tech
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise
Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
server?
I don't believe that Debian *has* a Motif-linked XEmacs on their ftp
server, but if they do, then all it should take to get it removed is to
file a bug report. That's what happened to KDE.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
Martin several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
Martin library.
This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:42:53AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL.
No. It's stricter, it requires that the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
The key is in an earleir paragraph.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then
Arnt Gulbrandsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
system. therefore the special exception applies.
It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to
It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc
when you get /bin/ls. If you also think that libc is a section of
(see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then the conclusion is clear:
You're in
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to Qt.
Indeed Qt is not part of the problem
But
If I say, do what you want with my code, and you incorporate it in a GPL
app, do you relicense my work? No, and you can't, because you're not the
Yes, you create a combined work bound by the GPL. And the GPL permits
components of a GPL'd item to be freer than GPL (by the GPL definition of
free)
files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
think Debian should convert libc and so on from the LGPL to the GPL in
order to comply with the license of the GPL'd applications in main?
Arnt if you stuck to using facts you might be able to have a sensible
discussion
The
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL. Do you think that means that I have to
re-license the individual parts?
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
According to several Debian developers Motif is not a
However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
GPL says section of). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
those services: A very different thing.
Qt is part of the derived work. It is linked to
It's really a shame KDE chose the GPL. Many BSD people will tell you the
GPL is the most restrictive free software license there is. It's the only
widely used free license that prohibits use with a library like Qt under any
circumstances at all. No special exception for system libraries,
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:29:08PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
[..]
A BSD license would have solved the problem nicely. No GPL code would have
been available to be stolen (subject to your license viewpoint) and no
GPL authors upset.
And we'd all probably be better off.
And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a
And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a binary only KDE that forbid
you to redistribute it and contained fixes you couldnt get back off them
Ehm, the world hasn't gone to hell because not everything is GPL. Take
for instance companies using FreeBSD, such as Whistle and Best Internet
57 matches
Mail list logo
