All this is very interesting, but I got stuck on the first word: What on
earth does IANAL stand for? I hope is not as lurid as it sounds. ;-)~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oleg Goldshmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FLiCK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Consider banning KDE?
>
> IANAL, and I would love to get into the guts of the licensing
> problem. The fact that KDE/Qt is not GPLed does not bother me per se
> (since I don't develop KDE-related stuff), but if they violate GPL
> that's a big problem that might lead me to dropping KDE indeed.
>
> However, the slashback article contains a statement that KDE violates
> the rights of the authors of GPLed components and patches included in
> the distribution. However, there is no good explanation or example of
> that, and that's what I'd like to see.
>
> GPL seems to be unequivocal on the following:
>
> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to
> those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when
> you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
> based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
> terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to
> the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
> wrote it."
>
> I don't think there can be an argument that KDE is distributed as one
> piece. However, conceivably one can argue that there is Qt and a
> collection of programs that are designed to work with it, and it is
> the latter that is KDE. IMHO (IANAL!) this is weak, and my
> understanding is that KDE without Qt is not GPLed either.
>
> I still don't understand the following though. The argument is that
> KDE disregards the fact that some s/w ("patches") contributed to it is
> GPLed. The people who contributed the patches etc knew in advance it
> would be used in KDE, linked with Qt, etc. Note item 10 of GPL:
>
> "10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
> programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the
> author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
> Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
> sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
> two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free
> software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software
> generally."
>
> It is conceivable that by contributing to KDE the s/w authors allowed
> - implicitly or explicitly - KDE to use their products, and so KDE is
> not technically in violation of GPL. This could have caused the
> allegations of "violating the free software spirit". The latter is
> understood differently by different groups, and can be perceived as a
> lame punch when no actual wrongdoing has taken place (I said
> "perceived", didn't I?). This might explain why Red Hat, who certainly
> can afford a lawyer or two now, despite the dismal stock performance,
> have no problem with that. Has any of the contributors complained that
> their rights have been violated?
>
> This turned out long. Sorry. To summarize, KDE's using non-GPLed
> software is not a grounds for a boycott in itself. They could have
> chosen Qt as the best or the most suitable at the time, for technical
> reasons. If they violate GPL, it's not enough to uninstall it - the
> instructions in http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html should
> be followed, I suppose. However, violating GPL is different from
> violating "free software spirit", the definition of which depends on
> who you talk to.
>
> --
> Oleg Goldshmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Inventions ... cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
> T. Jefferson.
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
