[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, russ wrote:
> Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, russ wrote:
> > > Is linux GPL?
> > The kernel is, yes, but you don't link to the kernel. The GNU C Libraries
> > are LGPLed, IIRC. By the above this should mean you can't link GPLed
> > software to them, but there is an exception for operating system libraries
> > which I am too lazy to track down and quote - this is because there are
> > systems that only have proprietary standard interfaces, and porting to
> > them would be well-nigh impossible without this exemption.
> If the linux kernel is GPL then you can't use any device drivers or
> daemons or modules that aren't GPL also? 
Sorry, my mistake. It is a modified GPL - Linus has said you may link
modules to it under any license.

> They say this about LGPL:
> "This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license,
> because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible
> with the GNU GPL. "
> But the GPL seems to contradict this? How can LGPL be compatible with
> GPL but GPL not compatible with LGPL?
The LGPL permits relicensing under the GPL. You can link LGPLed code to
GPLed code, but the whole becomes GPLed - you may not then link non-GPL
code to it.
"3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
    License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library."

> BTW, they have a specific section on QT which explicitly says you can
> link QT into a GPL program of your own:
It doesn't matter what the Qt license says, it is the GPL that says you
can't. You need permission from both licensers. If you wrote the GPL code,
then you can just license it under a modified GPL which allows linking to
Qt. (as sugested by the GNU page you quoted) Unfortunately for the KDE
team, they don't own the code and licensed it under an unmodified GPL.

-Greg