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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] GPL vs LGPL
From:       Karl Nelson <kenelson () ece ! ucdavis ! edu>
Date:       1999-03-26 22:10:22
[Download RAW message or body]


Placing Harmony as GPL would probably be a bad thing.  

First of all it would mean the harmony could not 
borrow code from any of the other libraries as
most other free widget libraries (Fltk and Gtk) are
LGPL.  This would increase the work load and make
the project harder to complete.  (I don't know
of too many GPL libraries that Harmony could
draw resources from including the KDE core libraries.)

Further, it would decrease the purpose of the project
immensely.  The Qt is only slightly more restrictive than
GPL (but still GPL incompatable).  For writing your
own GPL code QPL is perfectly acceptable assuming you
add the proper waver.  So making another GPL
widget set for it would mean restricting the source
to just those projects that borrow others GPL code 
and can't get authors permision to link to Qt.  That is
a very small gain for the large effort.

Last, you are distorting RMS's position at
least as far as I know. You should read his recent
statement regarding GPL verses LGPL.  In there, he
states that if the behavior is already found in
propriatary tools, it gives no advantage to limit
to GPL.  (On the other hand if something is unique
it should be GPL.)  We are talking about replicating an
available tool so the proper license would be LGPL.
Further, he publically stated on the mater that he
felt Harmony should continue (in its current form) 
when the QPL was released.  

I am sure that he would not reject GPL Harmony.
But I doubt the work will get done for such
a limited scope.  

References
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
 http://x13.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
   AN=414217499&CONTEXT=922485967.822673667&hitnum=0

--Karl

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