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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Qt vs. X Licensing (Was Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: can normal programs be LGPL'ed?])
From:       Roberto Alsina <ralsina () unl ! edu ! ar>
Date:       1998-12-14 13:08:36
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Raul Miller wrote:

> > So, let's look at a real-life example. Hypothetical: Adobe (X) makes
> > PhotoShop (program A) to link with Microsoft Windows 95 dlls (program
> > B). According to RMS' reasoning, "Adobe is, in substance, making a
> > larger program that includes Windows", to which I say, point proven,
> > his statement is a non-sequitor (he got himself deeper into trouble
> > by adding, "Distributing just the non-[Windows] part of that combined
> > program [--PhotoShop/Windows--] doesn't change that".) I mean, his
> > point is *just the fact of distributing PhotoShop source code* would
> > violate Microsoft's copyrights, if Adobe did not have a license to
> > distribute Windows.
> 
> Since neither Photoshop nor Windows is GPLed, and since Adobe undoubtedly
> did get a license from Microsoft to use that aspect of Windows which is
> used in Photoshop you've introduced a really huge "if" clause.

Ok, replace photoshop with emacs.

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina@unl.edu.ar
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina
                                KDE Developer (MFCH)
Life isn't short. It's just that death is longer.

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