[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[John Summerfield]

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, russ 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.
> > What in the GPL prevents an author (copyright holder) from linking with 
> > any library at all and distributing the results under the GPL?
> The copyright holder can do what they want with their code. Who cares? Go
> back and read the preceding thread so you will understand the situation
> under scrutiny. We are talking about code that the KDE team have licensed
> from third parties under the GPL and since tried to distribute under a
> different license - expressly forbidden by the terms under which they
> recieved the code from its author/copyright holder.

Please, rather than making unsupported statements which others can only 
veryify with some difficulty, cite examples.

> 
> > My reading of the document is that it describes what USERS can do and does 
> > not constrain the copyright author.
> Not even that, it only constrains what redistributors can do - you can use

In the context of the license, redistributors ARE users.


-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.