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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-08-18 19:24:37
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> mosfet wrote:
> 
> > Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Here's an idea.  They could ask RMS and the FSF lawyers if they
> > > are happy with it before they make it final.  No, that would be
> > > too easy.
> >
> > They already are. Troll Tech is putting a lot of effort into trying to
> > work with RMS in order to get something compatible, but the general
> > impression is the only license that will be publically supported is the
> > GPL itself, even if it's legally compatible.
> 
> If the FSF says it's GPL-compatible, then it will surely be publically
> accepted.
> 
> > From what I know of Troll Tech is willing to put Qt under the GPL but
> > they need to be assured that commercial companies won't take their code
> > (and believe me they have reasons to fear this, although I'm not going
> > to describe details). While the GPL is supposed to prevent this, both
> > Troll Tech's lawyers and Lineo's have reviewed the GPL and found that
> > legally this is highly debatable. This isn't something that just TT has
> > to worry about, it's a problem with anyone making a GPL library.
> 
> I don't know of any problems with the GPL wrt use for libraries.
> Why is it different than for applications?
>

Because there seems to be a consensus being formed that the GPL doesn't
apply across dynamic linking. That means a commercial app can link to a
GPL library legally without the author's permission. This is why Troll
Tech can't use the GPL as is and why the next version of the GPL needs
much more defined language on the issue.
 
> > Thus from what I am aware of Troll Tech is talking to RMS and hoping the
> > next version of the GPL gives them the protection needed from this type
> > of thing in a binding way. If it does they would switch to that. In the
> > meantime they have to use varients of the QPL.
> 
> Putting designer under the GPL and telling the world they use the
> GPL to license their Qt-linked apps won't help Troll get on RMS'
> good side.  They appear to prefer the defiant approach.

RMS says it's fine for GPL code to link to QPL code. We don't change
licenses from stock ones if there isn't a valid legal reason to do so.
If RMS says it's okay then in our minds it's okay as well. 

RMS is actually a lot more reasonable than some of the stuff given to us
by Debian ;-)

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