mosfet wrote:

> Requiring license changes that have no legal basis then calling KDE
> illegal does not help on my end ;-)

This RMS agreeing with `implicit intent' is a new twist that
wasn't present months ago.  I hope this can be clarified to
everyone's satisfaction.  I would be happy with such outcome with
reservations described below.

My only fear in such a big project using an implicit clause with
the GPL would be to later find that some developers have recycled
other GPLed code without permission.  That would put the project
in legal limbo just as now.  That reason alone should be enough
cause for KDE developers to use the Qt exception clause for any
future code.  Wouldn't it?

Peter