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

List:       koffice
Subject:    RE: I know this is annoying, but
From:       David Faure <David.Faure () cramersystems ! com>
Date:       1999-10-29 14:18:01
[Download RAW message or body]

> *This message was transferred with a trial version of 
> CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Claus Wilke wrote:
> > *This message was transferred with a trial version of 
> CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > regarding the recent thread on slashdot 
> > ( http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/28/0847235.shtml )
> > I just have to ask this question:
> > 
> > According to the koffice web-site, and in agreement with 
> what I found when
> > I just checked some koffice files, the whole of Koffice is 
> released under
> > the GPL. As you all know, there are people who object about 
> linking a
> > GPL-Program and a QPL-Program (Qt) together, but anyway, 
> this is not the purpose of
> > my mail (I personally think it is alright, if RMS himself 
> links (or at
> > least offers the option to link) emacs against motif).
> > 
> > But I think there is a much more important problem with the 
> GPL that you
> > should seriously consider, and not just disregard as "the 
> boring legal
> > stuff". If you release KDE under the GPL, as opposed to, 
> e.g., the LGPL, you
> > prohibit *any* commercial plugins to your software. And I 
> think this is something
> > you should consider very carefully, and use the GPL only if 
> you really want
> > to do this. As koffice, as far as I can see, turns more and 
> more into a
> > collection of useful libs that can interact with each other 
> and are open to all
> > sorts of plugins, it is, at least from my point of view, a 
> serious drawback
> > if it is not possible to write some commercial plugin to do 
> whatever is
> > currently not provided by free software.
> > 
> > By the way, this of course applies also to the whole of KDE 
> [konqueror,
> > e.g., is GPL, whereas kicker is artistic, and kparts is 
> nothing :-) ]. If
> > there are any basic libraries that are GPLed, then KDE will 
> *never* be a viable
> > Desktop for commercial software, and companies that want to 
> develop some
> > proprietary stuff would move somewhere else. This is the 
> reason why the
> > GNOME-Project, by the way, uses the LGPL for most of their 
> stuff, as far as I know
> > (I haven't really checked this, but GTK, for example, is 
> LGPL). It is no
> > (legal) problem to link most of the gnome stuff to mozilla, 
> for example, but
> > you could not do this with koffice in its current state.
> > 
> > And then, a liscense like the LGPL would of course remove 
> the problem with
> > the QPL.
> > 
> > For these reason, I think you should seriously consider 
> sorting this out
> > before it is too late (e.g. before the Krash release), if 
> you haven't chosen
> > the GPL because you are against any other form of "less" 
> (in RMS sence) free
> > software whatsoever. But if you were, you would probably 
> not have chosen Qt
> > in the first place.
> > 
> > Otherwise, KDE might become the desktop of the GPL-zealots 
> that many think
> > gnome is currently (which it is not if they really use the LGPL).
> > 
> > Any opinions, objections?
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> >   Claus
> 
> While I do appreciate the GPL license enviroment, but I think 
> that Claus has a point. 

Then I think you didn't read the followups to this post.

BTW, I'm currently checking the copyrights and replacing the
few GPL ones with LGPL ones in the libraries, with the authors' consent of
course.
They are only left-overs, no intent of GPL'ing libs at all.

--
David Faure
faure@kde.org - KDE developer
david@mandrakesoft.com - Mandrake
david.faure@cramersystems.com - Cramer Systems

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