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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    RE: [freeqt] Harmony classes to implement
From:       "Adam J. Richter" <adam () yggdrasil ! com>
Date:       2000-04-10 1:32:17
[Download RAW message or body]

>I remember reading an editorial/article (about 2 years) on creating a QT
>clone (this was before the QPL appeared and maybe pre-harmony).  

>If I recall correctly, it stated that anybody creating a QT clone would need
>to ensure they weren't directly influenced by the QT code (ie you couldn't
>look at the QT code to see how troll tech did it) - in order to avoid any
>legal problems.  I think it actually recommended having people code in a
>completely 'clean' environment - no qt code... only an class
>interface/process specification.

>What's the current state of things under the QPL?  If I were to code harmony
>classes, would having QT source on my machine be grounds for potential legal
>problems?


	I am not a lawyer, so you should not rely on what I am saying
as legal advice.

	As far as I know, there is no special legal situation that
makes looking at the Qt sources any different from looking at the
sources for any other software that you plan to clone.  It does not
make it illegal to clone the software, but being able to swear that
you have never seen the source code is a really strong defense against
the accusation that you copied it.  The Free Software Foundation used
to have a document that discussed this in some detail, back when
people were worried about being accused of copying Unix source source
that they had looked at.  One approach that was recommended was that
if you had to code something that you had seen the source code to,
that you should deliberately code it in a very different and hopefully
better way (for example, using dynamic data structures where static
ones had been used, or, say, writing for multithreading).

	As far as I know, all of the contributions to Harmony were
written by people who had not looked at the corresponding sections of
Qt source code.  I would like us to keep it that way if possible, but
I do think that having a copy of the Qt source code on your machine
that you have not read through would be OK.  I believe many past
contributors were Qt users, so they probably built Qt at some point,
and therefore probably had copies of the Qt source on their machines.

	Again, I am not a lawyer, so you should not rely on this as
legal advice.

Adam J. Richter     __     ______________   4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
adam@yggdrasil.com     \ /                  San Jose, California 95129-1034
+1 408 261-6630         | g g d r a s i l   United States of America
fax +1 408 261-6631      "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."

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