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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Re: FreeQt concerns
From:       Richard Stallman <rms () santafe ! edu>
Date:       1998-04-15 5:51:07
[Download RAW message or body]

After reading the distribution terms for "FreeQT", I can see that they
are the same as formerly used for Qt.  In other words, "FreeQT" is a
misleading name: it is not free software.

The main problem is in this restriction:

       Nobody but Troll Tech ( the makers of QT ) are allowed to distribute
      modified versions ( they will and incorporate modifications however )

This restriction means that "FreeQT" is not free software, because the
freedom to distribute a modified version is a crucial aspect of what
free software means.  As a result, linking "FreeQt" with GPL-covered
programs violates the GNU GPL.

This may seem paradoxical, in the light of statements from Troll Tech
that seem to say just the opposite.  For example:

       People using this Free version ( exactly the same as the commercial
      except for the license and price ), are in compliance as long as the
      software produced is licensed under the GPL

You can resolve this paradox by understanding the precise meaning of
that statement.  Troll Tech is saying that linking "FreeQT" with a
GPL-covered program complies *with the "FreeQT" distribution terms*.
Troll Tech is the authority for those terms, and if they say that this
practice complies with those terms, that makes it true.

Compliance with the "FreeQT" distribution terms is one thing, and
compliance with the GNU GPL is another.  Troll Tech has no special
authority over the GNU GPL, and their say-so cannot change what the
GPL permits.  The GPL is designed to require that anything added to a
free program is itself free; that the whole combination is free
software.  It can't be free software if it contains Qt.

This requirement in the GPL is very important; KDE would be impossible
without it.  KDE is compiled using GNU C++, and the C++ parsing and
semantics code in GNU C++ was written by a company that normally makes
software proprietary.  They made the GNU C++ code free because this
requirement in the GPL left them no way to do otherwise.

Enforcing the GNU GPL for a specific program is up to the authors of
that program.  Only the authors of KDE can enforce the GNU GPL for
KDE.  If they decide to overlook this issue and not object, then as a
practical matter they have given permission to link KDE with Qt.  It
appears that they have done so.

However, as long as KDE requires Qt and Qt is not free, it is
impossible to use KDE in free operating systems.  We could include KDE
sources, but that would be pointless since in the absence of Qt they
could not run.

For this reason, KDE has little chance of becoming the standard
desktop for GNU/Linux systems (*).  "FreeQT" does not meet the GNU
project's definition of free software, or the Debian definition, and
Red Hat is funding the development of GNOME.

This consequence results solely from KDE's unfortunate decision to use
Qt.  KDE may have some technical drawbacks, but so does every other
program we use; we would probably have accepted them.  If KDE had been
developed using a free library--even an "inferior" one--then it would
be capable of use in a free operating system, and it would already be
the standard desktop.

(*) See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.

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