KDE is effectivly not GPLed.. It's under a perverted GPL wannbe.. It's the
same text as the GPL but since they link to a propritary lib it's not
GPL..
I dont have a prob with non-gpled stuff, and I can understand using
propritary libs... But dont put it under the GPL!!! This just confuses
people! Now, if I release my code under the GPL the silly KDE people think
'hey, KDE is GPLed' so I can include his GPLed code in KDE.. ***WRONG***
If I wrote a GPLed app and someone brought it into a propritary (or
partally propritary) I'de be looking to stop them as fast as I could..
They should make a KPL which was very simmlar but it allowed linking to a
single propritary lib, QT. (it would also be smart to say you could only
like it with the publicly available QT so that the QT people couldn't make
a private QTlib that enhances an app and then sells the combined
propritary product). It would entirely the same but it would end the
confusion.
I've argued about this on slashdot, and *ALOT* of people think it would be
just fine for the kde people to make kgimp! Which is untrue unless the
Gimp authors (all of them) agree it's okay to link their app to a
propritary lib.
RMS, How about making GPLv3 say that you can't use the GPLv3+ on your
software if you are doing what KDE does?
-
Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >My opinion on licenses is that "he who writes the code gets to chose his
> > >license, and nobody else gets to complain". Anybody complaining about a
> > >copyright license is a whiner.
>
> As Linus isnt it seems aware of this its worth reminding the KDE people that
> they DID NOT WRITE ALL THE CODE. Every line of GPL'd code taken from things
> like GIMP at the express displeasure of the GIMP team for example. I don't
> think anyone could argue about a KDE "pseudo GPL license" as it stands
> now if it was all new code (ie the GPL but we think Qt is ok because...
> license). Authors can pick any license the like.
>
> > >The anti-KDE people are free to write their own code, but they don't have
> > >the moral right to complain about other people writing other code. I
>
> Just removal from GPL packages into a not quite GPL environment of
> other peoples code.
>
> > >despise people who do complain, and I won't be sucked into the argument.
> > >But feel free to forward this as you see fit.
>
> Too late Linus. Assuming of course you don't want people to release large
> chunks of kernel you cant modify - but of course thats ok because we'll
> give you a license to use it for no money, and its on a library even if
> its needed to make the OS work. Thats the KDE argument put brutally into
> kernel terms "Linux is an OS product linked on top of my proprietary binary
> only I2O driver interface module, but thats OK cos Linus said KDE was ok
> and KDE is allegedly GPL and dependant totally on a non free product.
> Hell lets release a proprietary mm layer too and sell that one"
>
> Neither case when you take GPL code from other places is ok.
>
> Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html