> > 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,
> That is because Motif is the official Unix GUI standard.
Was. Free unixlike systems can't include it into distribution, so use of
Motif-based GPL software on them requires not only installation of
separate library but also significant payment. Still it doesn't invalidate
GPL of that software.
> Qt is some
> library used to break the rights of GPL users. Very huge difference.
Again formally Qt license declares that GPL software can be developed
with it, therefore Troll Tech accepts the fact that software, linked
against Qt is under real, valid GPL. GPL'ed software authors may disagree
with it, but then it will be nice to see their reasoning, based on the
text of GPL -- as I have mentioned before there is no clear statement in
GPL that allows linking with Motif and disallows linking with Qt.
> [snip]
>
> > With Linux and *BSD the assumption that user can get Motif with every
> Wrong. Lesstif has been in more or less useable state for some time now.
> (And being binary compatible, ...)
Lesstif didn't exist when free unixlike systems were created, and GPL'ed
Motif-using software was distributed for them. And even now not every
piece of software, even GPL'ed one that works with Motif, works with
Lesstif. The closest thing to violating GPL is the distribution of
statically linked with Motif binaries of GPL'ed software -- user, even
with source, can use them but can't make any modification unless he will
install Motif.
Currently user theoretically can modify the source or Lesstif itself to
make GPL'ed Motif-using software work with Lesstif, so it partially solves
the problem, however only when Lesstif will become a complete replacement
for Motif the issue will be solved completely.
> > 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
> Ok. I make binary only linux kernel:
> -) I use a special libary that is under NDA. The license also says it's
> 100% to use it with GPLed software. (The analog of Qt, but using
> a different limitation of license.)
> -) Now it becomes shady, but I claim kind of system library status,
> because every of these nice I2O boards come with the disc with the
> library.
See 4Front Technologies OSS. As proprietary as any software can be, and
it links to Linux kernel as module. In that case the difference is, it
uses existing interface and does not impose proprietary standard on any
existing GPL'ed software. However nothing prevents anyone from writing
software that is supposed to be used with card, supported by that driver
only.
One can argue that it's morally wrong to create such dependencies
because despite being allowed under GPL they limit freedom of users.
Or that it isn't wise politically because it will force commercial
developers to pay Troll Tech for the ability to make applications
interoperable with KDE.
Or it isn't fair to allow Troll Tech to collect money from every
commercial project that interoperates with KDE.
All three things are quite questionable, and none of them has anything
to do with the text of GPL.
> The argument is even more valid with user level applications, where
> the system library exception is known and accepted. The problem here is,
> what is a system library. Clearly the user may not be allowed to decide
> this for himself. Why? Because if the user decides what is a system
> library and what is not, then we have a problem with Linux:
> What is a Linux distribution:
> -) Some set of floppies.
> -) A CD-R.
> -) a silver CD?
IMHO anything that can be distributed and can be used all by itself to
install Linux.
In "Linux itself" only libc and libm really can be claimed to be a
"system library", because everything else is optional and replaceable. In
distribution that includes Qt or even Motif, "usually distributed with a
system" will include whatever is included. If manipulations of that kind
don't invalidate GPL of Motif-using programs, I don't see why Qt is any
worse.
>
> I mean, any of these can be produced by any bad guy to circumvent the GPL.
>
> So the orginal authors must decide what is a system library, and the FSF
> decided that for it's GPL'ed software Qt is NOT a system library.
The exact text is:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
Qt does not accompany KDE distribution unless KDE is distributed with
the system. But Qt "normally" is not distributed with Linux, and neither
is Motif, however nothing prevents Qt to be distributed with Linux,
"normally" or not. That "normally" creates rather large gray area around
such things because for Linux there is no "normally" that can be clearly
and unambiguously defined.
> Seems like the Gimp people are taking the same stance.
Gimp people may have other valid arguments -- they are unwilling to
support multiple toolkits, and don't expect KDE people to keep their code
in sync with development of Gimp, they see such things as unethical and
won't accept modified code as "really Gimp", etc. They can develop or
accept from KDE developers KDE interoperability support in Gimp, that will
not create Gimp version that can't be built or used without KDE or Qt, but
will work with KDE when compiled with it (and the same with, say, GNOME).
But position that KDE developers violate their GPL and therefore should be
at most damned and at least flamed, and maybe sued, is clearly
unproductive.
> So somehow the whole whining was about lost code, because without Harmony,
> KDE is in a blocked position: They are not compatible with third party
> (L)GPL.
>
> > LGPL'ing KDE (so it will resolve linking problem explicitly) is
> > impossible if it contains already GPL'ed "stolen" code.
> Exactly. Additionally one should consider that the KDE people are trying
> to do a STANDARD GUI desktop for Unix/Linux. In such a situation, the
> legal stuff should be 100% Ok, it's quite a different question compared to
> say some screensaver that could become indistributable.
KDE has a chance to become "standard GUI" if not for every Unix (TOG
opinion is known, but pretty much irrelevant here) then for free unixlike
systems. Or GNOME can become one. Or both. Or anything else. But currently
there is no such thing as globally accepted Unix high-level GUI standard,
and we should deal with it.
> Additionally, the whole KDE is without valid license, which probably
> stops it being used by some distributions with a legal department like RH:
> If one of the core developers of KDE someday comes to the conclusion that
> Qt is not a system library, the whole KDE breaks down till his parts of
> the code are replaced. Actually, many people from the Land of
> Lawyers^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFreedom will not take this chance.
Last time I have checked, KDE was under GPL. I don't know, who and how
can clarify validity of it, and if my money will help, I can donate (no, I
still can't afford Motif on every Linux and *BSD box that I have
installed).
-- 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