David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> writes: > >> In article <hbco0q$l0...@colin2.muc.de>, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> >> wrote: >>> Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages >>> wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly >>> dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is >>> sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law >>> under which the GPL must operate. >>> >>> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. >>> Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions >>> is there any "danger" or "complexity". >> >> The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically >> linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was >> something normally distributed with the components of the operating >> system on which KDE ran. >> >> But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the >> license. > > Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on > the non-free Qt as a crucial infrastructure, so the FSF strongly > recommended not using KDE. In a similar vein, the FSF strongly advised > against using Java as long as it was licensed non-free. And other > software. > > That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in > the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. > > The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release > it under a free license after all. > > Where is your problem with that?
he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you make it out. As even you must realise by now because of the size of the threads and the fact you need to keep explaining things. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
