[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Licensing alternative
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-01-26 11:58:31
[Download RAW message or body]

Believe me, I really don't like the GPL. Nonetheless the nonsense that
some people like Debian have been maintaining about GPL incompatiblity
is just that - nonsense. The author of a KDE application can require
linking to anything he or she wants. If you create a GPL KDE or Qt
application permission to use those libraries is implicit. You require
it for building. You most likely use it's configuration system for
compiling. If it's a core application you upload it into KDE's core
packages. If it's not you most likely upload it to KDE's ftp server.
Every other line probably calls KDE/Qt. Saying you need to place
explicit statements in the license allowing to build your application is
utter and complete nonsense and has no legal basis whatsoever from what
I can tell. At least Debian has admitted to this and that it's mostly an
anti-KDE emotional issue for many of them. 

Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> 
>    Hi!
> 
> [ Disclaimer: I am no lawyer and this is no legal advice. ]
> 
> There are issues with the GPL. Simplified, GPLd code may not be linked to
> non-GPLd code and distributed, at least after some strict interpretations
> of the GPL (like Debian, FSF). Linking to LGPL for instance is ok, since
> the LGPL allows you to convert the code to GPL. Linking to QPL is not,
> since QPLd code can't be converted to GPL without violating the QPL.
> 
> After kimp and various licensing debates, people are starting to use other
> licensing models in new kde-core-apps, like
> 
> - LGPL
> - BSD
> - Artistic
> 
> which all allow linking to Qt under any interpretation.
> 
> However, some developers explicitely want to get the protection that the GPL
> offers (you may want to avoid that anybody can take your code and link it to
> proprietary stuff, like the next version of Internet Explorer).
> 
> Here is an alternative: If you add
> 
>     Permission is also granted to link this program with the Qt
>     library, treating Qt like a library that normally accompanies the
>     operating system kernel, whether or not that is in fact the case.
> 
> after the GPL header in your source, nobody can claim that he couldn't link
> it to Qt anymore. RMS proposed that on kde-licensing, so it should work. I
> think that is the pragmatic approach to get rid of the problem. If you write
> KDE software, you intend your stuff to be linked to Qt, and saying so in
> the copyright will cause no harm to you.
> 
> You may only do this to code you wrote yourself, of course, if you are using
> code of other people, you need to ask.
> 
> Due to the unclear situation, whether or not you have that clause, you should
> not copy GPLd code into your project, without asking. If the author intended
> to have his code under the "strict GPL" as interpreted by the FSF, it is at
> least very very unpolite to simply use his work, though he explicitely doesn't
> want it in that case. (Start kemacs to see what I mean ;).
> 
> I think it would be nice if we could in the long run avoid having GPLd code
> without that extra clause in the official KDE releases, since then Debian for
> instance could ship KDE. It would also make clear what our license is, despite
> everybody using his/her favourite GPL interpretation.
> 
>    Cu... Stefan
> --
>   -* Stefan Westerfeld, stefan@space.twc.de (PGP!), Hamburg/Germany
>      KDE Developer, project infos at http://space.twc.de/~stefan/kde *-

-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
http://www.mosfet.org - The place for KDE development news.
mosfet@mandrakesoft.com
mosfet@kde.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]