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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: can normal programs be LGPL'ed?]
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1998-12-10 1:19:36
[Download RAW message or body]

Jules Bean wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Andreas Pour wrote:
> 
 > > > The GPL does require this.
> > >
> > > However, the GPL also requires that any derived work be distributable
> > > under the same terms.
> >
> > Well, gee, that's what people have been arguing about for months, what does it
> > mean "under the same terms", but thanks for pointing that out :-) .
> 
> Under the same terms means "under those terms which constitute the GPL".
> Which is subtlely different from 'under the GPL'.
> Jules

But as I keep saying X is not under the same terms as the GPL.  X has a
different set of terms and gives a different set of rights.  

The only way it can be ok to ship GPLed apps linked against X are as 
follows.

1 : X is a part of the OS.

2 : The "under the terms of this license" clause means that all 3rd
parties can receive the source code for X and are free to modify it.

If it means something else along the lines as "the same set of 
permissions granted in the GPL" then X code doesn't qualify since
it grants a different set of rights than the GPL.  The common ground
between them is when the GPL is interpreted to mean other works 
must allow us to hack them and include source code to make it 
convenient.

However that meaning is unacceptable since QPL 0.91 would then
qualify as GPL compatible.

I suggest those distributors who interpret the GPL this way remove 
X and TeX, and anything else that isn't GPL.

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