On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program contained in the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as a derivative work in local copyright law (local because the GPL does not nominate a particular jurisdiction for covering law).
Has someone worked with Qt for Windows before, and could tell us whether it involves static or dynamic linking?
If dynamic, then, it doesn't make sense that an EXE that builds on Qt should also be GPLed.
*shrug* To my knowledge, no court has ruled either way on the issue. The FSF holds the position that the new program *should* have a GPL-compatible license and that the GPL terms hold for the program as a whole. Trolltech also holds this position, I believe (and this is the important point if you want to avoid being sued, regardless of how a court would decide).
Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation of the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably wager that the court would hold that only static linking would force the program as a whole to follow the GPL terms. However, I certainly don't have the money to pony up to run a test case. Consequently, I try to follow the wishes of the copyright holder.
-- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
