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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Qt Free Edition License vs. XFree License
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-14 0:14:41
[Download RAW message or body]

Raul Miller wrote:

> Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > I've not glossed over it, I have through detailed analysis concluded
> > that the only "terms of this License" that apply to the complete
> > source code are (a) distribute full source code to everything,
> > including the X or Qt part (which but for that sentence you might not
> > be obligated to do), and (b) do not charge for further redistribution,
> > including of the X or Qt part (which otherwise might be able to do).
>
> But section 2 says that you have the right to modify the GPLed work
> ("the program"), creating a work based on the program provided that
> you release the word based on the program under the GPL (which, in the
> context you create would also be called "the program").

You have missed the point:  what does it mean to say "under the GPL"?  Gee,
I guess every time I ask, what does it mean to say "under the GPL", and
give a reasoned analysis of what I think it means, you will respond, it
means "under the GPL".   Well, I have already stated multiple times what I
think the three options are for interpreting this, the response above is
tautological and vacuous.  If in fact you mean that you have to license the
entire work (include the X or Qt part) under the GPL, then under your
reading you can't distribute a binary linked against X (and, under RMS'
reading we've been discussing, you can't even write a GPL program that is
designed to link with X).

Regards,

Andreas Puur
pour@mieterra.com

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