[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, russ wrote:
> Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, russ wrote:
> > > Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > That quote came form the GNU homepage, not QT. GNU has a special
> > > section on the QT license that says you can link in QT.
> > Aaaaargh!! I know, I quoted the relevant part of it back to you, didn't I?
> > It is written there very clearly that you can only link in code if you
> > modify the GPL license. Now, read this next bit slowly and carefully:
> > The KDE team did not obtain the code they are using via a modified GPL.
> I was just pointing out that the GPL says you can't link in non-gpl
> programs.
Certainly.

> Then this section specifically exempts QT from that saying you may have
> a GPL program and link in QT.
No, it doesn't. It says that if you choose not to license your code under
the GPL, but under a license that is similar to the GPL but specifically
modified to allow such linking, then you are fine. This should seem
obvious, since you can license your own code however you want. If you want
to link to Qt, you obviously can't use the GPL, but there is no reason you
can't use something similar.

If the code is not yours, like parts of KDE do not belong to members of
the KDE development team, then you must accept the license you recieved
the code under. If that license was the GPL, then you must adhere to it
and release derivative works only under the GPL. (and not under a
modified version of it)

> The whole GPL seems a bit wishy washy to me. :)
The GPL is definitely not wishy washy. It is very firm on the point that
you may not link GPLed software to non-GPLed code. What you quoted was not
the GPL, anyway, but GNU commentary on how to make a license that was
wishy-washy in some respects, but still largely the same as the GPL.

-Greg