From kde-licensing  Sun Jun 25 01:22:12 2000
From: Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP () dfo-mpo ! gc ! ca>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:22:12 +0000
To: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=96189614402828


Steve Hutton wrote:

> 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.
> 
> So there are really these stances:
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.

Except that the post that you were replying to assumed stance #4
(and not #5) and asked for a clarification in that context (not a
change of license at all).

So what's the problem in clarifying the license if you are in
camp #4?

Heck, what's the problem with clarifying the existing license
even if you are in camps #1, #2 or #3?

Peter