Messages in this thread | | | Date | 12 Jul 1998 20:02:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing |
| |
abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (Alex Belits) wrote on 11.07.98 in <Pine.LNX.4.00.9807112154210.5840-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > 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.
This is wrong.
The GPL is pretty explicit about this. You can use Motif *if and only if* Motif comes with your OS, or with your C compiler.
You can use Qt under the exact same conditions.
Problem is, lots of OSes come with Motif, pretty few come with Qt (ISTR SuSe and that's it?).
That is, on a system where you don't get Motif libs with either the OS or the C compiler, a Motif-linked Emacs is in violation of the GPL - to name an example using neither KDE nor Qt.
> Qt license specifically grants the unlimited use of Qt for GPL'ed > software,
Completely irrelevant. It's not the Qt license that's violated, it's the GPL of every piece of software whose author didn't allow to make an exception for Qt. (Except, of course, if you happen to use it on a system where Qt is part of OS or compiler.)
The only way the Qt license could solve this is by allowing to distribute Qt under GPL, which Troll has made quite clear they don't want to do. Which is their right.
As for the flame war, a large part of it seems to come from (some?) KDE people saying "there is no problem", when it's fairly easy to see that there is indeed a problem, and in fact getting pretty upset about people saying otherwise. You know the saying about being part of the problem, or being part of the solution ...
I've heard (but can't confirm) that there is something more or less like a free-Qt project. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in the near future. That would certainly solve this problem. Troll getting religion and changing their license would also help, but is unlikely. In the mean time, I doubt this flame war will end.
MfG Kai
- 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
| |