On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:34:31PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
> > > number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
> > > become illegal. With a GPL/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
> > > write a GPL application or pay for a license. This would leave all of
> > > the BSD, MIT, Artistic and even LGPL authors out in the cold.
> >
> > No. BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL. You'd
> > leave out those people who were using these licenses to interoperate
> > with software licensed under non-GPL terms as a single work.
>
> Hmmm, this isn't how I understand it. One can link from a GPL
> application to a BSD library, but not from a BSD application to a GPL
> library. This is because the application is a derivative of the
> library according to the GPL, and all derivatives of GPL code have to
> be GPL as well.
The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't
contain the advertising clause.
> In any case, it would also leave out the MPL and QPL users, of which
> there is a significant number of the latter.
Yes, but you didn't mention these <g>.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
Evangelist, Opensales, Inc. http://www.opensales.org
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0
PGP signature
