[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Beau Kuiper wrote:
> > > even if the above were true, KDE developers will not come after you for
> > > linking their programs with the library it was clearly designed for!
> > No, but the third parties might very well go after the KDE team and anyone
> > else who distributes KDE, since they have not given KDE permission to
> > distribute modified versions of their code linked to Qt.
> The objective of the GPL is to promote free code. Even if possible, I 
> don't see that going after KDE developers would promote free code.
The next person that tries to break that section of the GPL might be doing
it with proprietary code. Someone might think we need to defend the GPL on
principle. It is no doubt for exactly the reason you mention that noone
has gone them, though. The problem is, while there is still the
possibility that someone might, to distribute KDE is to be a contributing
party, and to be in just as much trouble.

> Nor is there any obvious involvement of Dollar Bill.
Really?? TrollTech are pushing Qt as an Open Source license in letter, but
in no way in spirit, because it offers the minimum amount of freedom
required by the OSD, while retaining as much control as possible so that
Troll can sell their proprietary version to proprietary developers at a
steep price, (because they can claim it is a standard widget library for
Linux) and know that they won't be outcompeted by people using the Open
Source version, because of the hoops Troll will make them go through to
use the Open Source version in the way that the OSD intends.

> If I can take the component parts and put it all together to get the same 
> final results,
I don't quite understand this line. Are you suggesting writing KDE from
scratch yourself and not distributing it? Of course you can, and of
course it's legal, but why would you, and how is it relevant?

> I don't see that suing me is going to server anyone any useful purpose. 
Probably not. More likely would be that they sued the larger distributors
of it. That would mean no more development, no more covert distribution,
and probably no more KDE for most users.

> Neither do I see it holding up in court, but then I'm not a lawyaer or
> judge, and I HAVE been astounded at some High Court decisions.
Not if you haven't distributed it, but if you have, then it is seems about
as clear as any legal decision I've seen. Clearer, in fact, because the
GPL is designed that way. the KDE guys know full well they are in
violation, have admitted such and are working towards fixing it.

-Greg