Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:38:32PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > I got the impression that to be linked with a GPL app and distributed > as such, it is required that one uses the GPL conversion clause. I don't think you got this impression by reading the text of the license -- the license clearly states that converting the LGPL to the GPL is an option. And, the license clearly indicates that the purpose of this option is so that authors of GPLed code can incorporate LGPLed code into their programs without forcing them to weaken the license on their programs. So you must have gotten this impression from somewhere else. -- Raul
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
Today, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > > Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions > > > for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the > > > same problem. This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE > > > wants to ignore. > > By the way, should the shared libs also have the exception for Qt? > LGPL doesn't require it, but it can't hurt. > (This makes 11 for the people counting on irc..) I got the impression that to be linked with a GPL app and distributed as such, it is required that one uses the GPL conversion clause. And to be later linked with libqt, it requires that it is converted to GPL with libqt exception clause. IMHO, pure LGPL is not good enough for static binaries. That's if I got the LGPL right, altough I am not so sure now. Well, I might be a bit paranoid. And sorry for not being able to IRC... -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions > > for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the > > same problem. This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE > > wants to ignore. > > By the way, should the shared libs also have the exception for Qt? LGPL doesn't require it, but it can't hurt. (This makes 11 for the people counting on irc..) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 Fuck, I can't compile the damn thing and I wrote it !
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
Today, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:47:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > > ok...unixODBC say's this: > > > >* All programs are GPL. * > > > >* All libs are LGPL > > unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use > > those libraries. The libraries are LGPL'd and the apps are GPL'd. They > > are also linked to libqt2.1. > > I'm trying to find out if packages I create can be uploaded to Debian or > > not. > Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions > for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the > same problem. This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE > wants to ignore. By the way, should the shared libs also have the exception for Qt? -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:47:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > ok...unixODBC say's this: > > > > > >* All programs are GPL. * > > >* All libs are LGPL [..] > > unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use > those libraries. The libraries are LGPL'd and the apps are GPL'd. They > are also linked to libqt2.1. > > I'm trying to find out if packages I create can be uploaded to Debian or not. > :) Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the same problem. This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE wants to ignore. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 Caveats: it's GNOME, be afraid, be very afraid of the Depends line -- James Troup
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:40:27AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is > > > > using > > > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? > > > > > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem > > > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem > > > > > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt > > > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE > > > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the > > > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to > > > give up being able to use GPL'd code. > > > > ok...unixODBC say's this: > > > >* All programs are GPL. * > >* All libs are LGPL > > > > so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs > > would be non-free...(or just not distributed)... > > Since I have no idea what the HELL you're talking about, I can only assume > you're talking about mixing GPL and LGPL licenses. If you are, I suggest > reading the LGPL sometime. unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use those libraries. The libraries are LGPL'd and the apps are GPL'd. They are also linked to libqt2.1. I'm trying to find out if packages I create can be uploaded to Debian or not. :) Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using > > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? > > > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem > > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem > > > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt > > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE > > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the > > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to > > give up being able to use GPL'd code. > > ok...unixODBC say's this: > >* All programs are GPL. * >* All libs are LGPL > > so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs > would be non-free...(or just not distributed)... Since I have no idea what the HELL you're talking about, I can only assume you're talking about mixing GPL and LGPL licenses. If you are, I suggest reading the LGPL sometime. > and the source could go into mainsince the interreaction of the gpl and > qpl is in the .deb form...and not the source form. > > that sound logical? Not without the slightest clue what you're talking about, no. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 C'mere, come smell the door. -- Tracey Luke
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:59:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to > give up being able to use GPL'd code. ok...unixODBC say's this: * All programs are GPL. * * All libs are LGPL so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs would be non-free...(or just not distributed)... and the source could go into mainsince the interreaction of the gpl and qpl is in the .deb form...and not the source form. that sound logical? Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:59:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to give up being able to use GPL'd code. Troll Tech of course stays conveniently on the sidelines. Enough people like KDE because it's good and easy to use that the "It works" factor overrides the "It's illegal to do that" factor. Every now and then Troll Tech makes a token gesture that they are interested in making Qt 2.0 and later GPL compatible to keep certain people satisfied with their attempts at doing the right thing. I'm not satisfied. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 I wouldn't make it through 24 hours before I'd be firing up the grill and slapping a few friends on the barbie. Why would you slap friends with barbies, thats kinda kinky
stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
