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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP () dfo-mpo ! gc ! ca>
Date:       2000-08-15 19:12:35
[Download RAW message or body]


mosfet wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> > 
> >     Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a
> >     GPL-covered program and Qt and link them together, no matter how.
> > 
> >     However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you
> >     want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can
> >     easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program
> >     by adding a notice like this to it:
> > 
> >       As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
> >       with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you
> >       follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
> >       software in the executable aside from Qt.
> > 
> >     You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for
> >     the program. Add it in the source files, after the notice
> >     that says the program is covered by the GNU GPL.
> 
> If you want to go by what the FSF has said, RMS has already stated that
> it's evident that the usage of Qt is clearly allowed for code written
> specifically for KDE/Qt. No clauses needed. Debian chooses not to listen
> to him.

Please ask RMS to update his web page then.  If he believes this
this firmly, he can help by clarying his position on his web page.

(Richard, the issue is that the FSF web site says that the QPL
and GPL are incompatible (and code you write yourself under the
GPL must also carry the explicit exemption to link to Qt), and
that you have recently expressed the opinion that it was okay
after all to redistribute GPL code that links to Qt if the
application was designed to link with Qt in the first place,
e.g. most of KDE excluding third-party GPLed applications ported
to Qt)
 
> And this was for third party code, now Debian is being like this about
> free, GPL code written by TrollTech themselves. 

Third party in the sense in the sense that KDE did not write Qt,
not in the sense of using someone elses GPLed code and porting it
to Qt.

Many free software developers are sloppy about licensing issues
because they don't care about them (It took me years to care
about it, even reusing some Emacs GPLed code in my then non-GPLed
elisp stuff; I've learned the importance of this issue since
then).  Letting an implicit permission stand makes it that much
easier that some developer will come along and reuse someone
else's GPL code in their own GPL (plus implicit permission to
link to Qt) application, thinking they are both GPLed so it's
okay (I'm not talking something big like kghostview here, but
reusing functions instead of recoding).  But there's a problem,
you also think this _is_ okay.  So as soon as we accept this
view, the issue becomes very muddy indeed.

Personally, I would be very happy if RMS changed his web page
accordingly.  But I'd also be very afraid of this weakening the
GPL in the future.  If it were discovered that GPLed code that be
reused in a GPL+implicit-permision application years down the
road, you would probably be the first to complain that it's too
difficult to track down the original author for permission so
let's just assume it's okay.  You have said as much about KDE.

Peter Galbraith

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