> If they in fact are violating _other_ peoples copyrights, that is a
> completely different matter, and I never implied that I allowed that.
> Violating other peoples copyright is a crime, and anybody who thinks I
> thought that was ok didn't read my message.
>
> IF the KDE people are indeed doing that, then it is unacceptable, no
> question about it. And you can actually sue them.
Lameness aside, the problem is that KDE is as much under GPL as the
"stolen" code, and it shouldn't cause any problems unless GPL-ness of KDE
is questioned, and this is what _real_ argument is about. The only known
precedent of GPL application based on non-free toolkit is Motif-based
GPL'ed code, and it seems like it was accepted that GPL'ed code can use
Motif. What is so much different about Qt in that case I don't know,
however GPL doesn't define explicitly what kind of dependence on
non-free code is allowed.
If Qt was part of KDE and was developed specifically for it, GPL will be
definitely invalid for KDE because GPL'ed products must provide entire
source under GPL. If Qt was supplied with every system, KDE can run on,
GPL will be definitely valid because dependency won't have any
consequences. Real siutation is between these two extremes.
It worth mentioning that originally when Gnu started there was no
possibility to create GPL-only or even free-software-only system --
formally (considering BSD/AT&T sources dependency) before Linux and
BSD4.4-Lite there was no free kernel and no free libc. Still GPL'ed
software used both with no problems. Motif appeared almost simultaneously
in standard distribution of every Unix (except SunOS?), so there was no
problem with it either, regardless of OSF and its descendants' license and
insane price.
With Linux and *BSD the assumption that user can get Motif with every
system is clearly wrong (even I can't afford it on every Linux and *BSD
system, I install). So even though GPL on Motif-using programs is
valid, developers of GPL'ed software _feel_ that they need something else,
be it free Motif clone (Lesstif), non-free toolkit that at least _can_ be
installed on every box with free software (Qt) or new free toolkit
(GTK) to make users of free OS be able to use their software.
Qt license specifically grants the unlimited use of Qt for GPL'ed
software, so if there is no legal problem with that, KDE is really under
valid GPL. If not (or if GPL will be changed to make it invalid), code
that automatically assumes the latest version of GPL, will become illegal,
unless Qt license will be changed to conform with changed GPL (what in
that case may restrict possibilities to GPL'ing Qt, what Troll Tech can't
do).
LGPL'ing KDE (so it will resolve linking problem explicitly) is
impossible if it contains already GPL'ed "stolen" code.
-- Alex
- 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