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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: A Detailed Analysis of the GPL For KDE/QT
From:       Raul Miller <rdm () test ! legislate ! com>
Date:       1998-10-19 23:44:03
[Download RAW message or body]

Richard Stallman writes:
> >> If they are talking about modifying the Program to combine it with Qt,
> >> that is making a larger work that contains the Program and Qt.

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> >We are talking about source here.  They are not modifying the Program to
> >combine it with Qt.  They are modifying it to include strings that refer to
> >Qt.  The source does not include anything licensed under the Qt license (or
> >so I assume: I've not examined it myself).

Matthias Ettrich <ettrich@troll.no> wrote:
> You are totally right. Neither KDE nor Troll Tech incorporated GPLed code
> copyright by the FSF into Qt. This most certainly would violate the GPL.
> Further more, KDE did not incorporated any Qt source code distributed under
> the terms of the Qt Free Edition license into some FSF programs, since this
> would violate both the Qt Free Edition license and the GPL.

Er.. no one said that Qt had been modified to include GPLed code.

However, it seems to me that, for example, xmcd [a GPLed work where the
FSF is listed as the copyright holder] has been modified to create kmcd.
It seems to me that the changes were so that the executable would
incorporate Qt.  And I really do think that the KDE team has been
declaring that distribution of this executable is perfectly legal.

Now, if I understand your position, you claim that either 

[a] the kmcd executable, as a whole, doesn't include Qt, or
[b] that the GPL allows people to distribute the kmcd executable, and/or
[c] in any event it has nothing to do with KDE if other people distribute kmcd.

???????????????

-- 
Raul

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