On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is > > derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL > > as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work > > without additional permission being granted by the author (unless, of > > course, you are the author). > > However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims > that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the > GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on > those services: A very different thing.
you miss the point. linking the two creates a work which is derived from both. > > note that the GPL does not distinguish between static and dynamic > > linking. > > It distinguishes between separate distribution and distribution "as > part of" A. Not entirely the same thing, but not terribly different > either. they are quite different. > rms, you and I are all simple persons and speak with the same > authority. Only a court speaks with special authority. the author of a work generally has a damn good idea of what his intentions were when he wrote it. Intent is a very important factor when it comes time to interpret a document (or an action, for that matter) in a court of law, especially when the author has repeatedly gone to great lengths to clarify his intentions. case in point: KDE developers *appear* to intend that their software be linked with Qt and redistributed. But whenever they are asked to clarify their intentions, they ignore the question and try to side-step the issue. Why? All that is being asked of them is to clearly state their intention by explicitly granting the permission to link with Qt and distribute. > > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is > > "what is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission > > to their license"? How does it hurt them to do that? > > Is that really not obvious to you? no, it's not obvious. the only thing i can think of is that KDE developers are aware of the license problems but don't want to publicly admit to them because of the ramifications about the other GPLed code that they have used. i prefer to think of KDE developers as merely mistaken (and a bit clueless about licensing issues), rather than as deliberately disingenuous. I will continue to give them that benefit of the doubt until I see clear proof to the contrary. craig -- craig sanders
