[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[russ]

Sorry I sent this one. I guess we should end our discussion. The
natives are getting restless. (Tony is sending me nasty emails.)  :)

Thanks for all the help Greg!


russ wrote:
> 
> Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> 
> Yes it does. I quote once again from the GNU license page:
> 
> "However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you want to
> release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do that. "
> 
> I don't see any ambiguity in that statement. It clearly says you can
> release GPL code which links in QT. Seems pretty clear. It doesn't say
> anything about a license similar to GPL it says GNU GPL.
> 
> > 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)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> That's not what they say. It says you can definitely release your own
> GPL code with QT linked in. I still think that's pretty wishy-washy.
> :)
> 
> >
> > -Greg
> 
> --
> 
> Regards
> russ
> 
> http://www.powerstech.com/hex

-- 

Regards
russ

http://www.powerstech.com/hex