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. > 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. Ray -- 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