On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote: > > Being concerned with the legality of redistributing KDE linked to QT > > I consulted a copyright lawyer about Andreas Pour's interpretation > > given on this list.
> I the potential for problems with this. For example, directing his > attention to certain aspects of the license during lunch, you'd likely be > glossing over what I see as the major flaw of Andreas Pour's argument: > his concept of what a program is (he seems to think that a program is a > file, where the GPL indicates that the usual case is that a program is > a collection of files). I have been researching your comments. Especially the thread containing this mail: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00133.html Am I correct in stating that under your interpretation of the GPL "the complete source code of a KDE application (that uses QT and hence requires being linked to QT) includes the QT source code."? And am I correct in saying that this fact is central to your argument? BFN, Don.
