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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From:       Steve Hutton <shutton () mediaone ! net>
Date:       2000-06-24 20:53:38
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> 1- You are saying that the GPL is fine for KDE because KDE
>    authors give implicit agreement that (contrary to the terms of
>    the GPL) linking to Qt is fine.

Not everyone even agrees that the GPL forbids linking to QPL'd code.
There's been plenty of discussion on this list about that.  Not everyone
agreed that the GPL forbids linking to QT under its previous license,
either.  

Now that KDE (free software) links with QPL'd code (free software), I'd
say there are even more people who don't think the GPL forbids linking
to QPL'd code.

So there are really these stances:

1) Linking GPL'd code to all versions of QT is legal, regardless of
whether implied permission is given.  

(Judging by their actions, this is the stance most commercial distributers
have taken.  For a time,  Red Hat was an exception, but they subsequently
changed their public policy on the issue)

2) Linking GPL'd code to all versions of QT is legal, as long as
implied permission is given.

(Most KDE 1.x authors took either this stance or the one above it.)

3) Linking GPL'd code to QPL'd QT is legal, regardless of whether
implied permission is given.  

(Anyone who holds view 1) above most certainly holds this view as well.)

4) Linking GPL'd code to QPL'd QT is legal, as long as implied
implied permission is given.  

(This is the stance RMS seems to have expressed recently)

5) Linking GPL'd code to QPL'd QT is legal only if explicit permission
is given.  

(This is the stance that Debian appears to be taking, but
it is hard to tell because there isn't a public statement on the issue
and the last such statement -
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1998-10-08-002-10-OP
suggested the issue would be resolved once KDE depended upon no
"non-free" code, which is now the case under any interpretation of the
QPL)

So the problem is that the only way to satisfy those who fall into the
category 5 above is to change the license of all GPL'd KDE code,
and the copyright holders of such code tend to fall into the first 4 categories.

Steve

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