[plug] KDE licence (was Debian was Mandrake)

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, russ wrote:
> Christian wrote:
> > Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> > > > 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. "
> > > IF. YOU. HAVE. WRITTEN.
> > > They _did_not_write_the_code_ so this does not apply to them.
> What most of YOU did not pick up is that I was not disputing the KDE
> situation. I stated this several messages back. 
> http://www.cantech.net.au/plug/2000-02/msg00644.html
> I was just discussing the GPL in general.

OK, I shall quote from that page, _after_ you said you were discussing
general GPL only, not KDE:

# I was just pointing out that the GPL says you can't link in non-gpl
# programs. 
Which clearly means you are talking about somone who has licensed the code
under the GPL, and therefore presumably do not own it.

#            Then this section specifically exempts QT from that saying
# you may have a GPL program and link in QT. The whole GPL seems a bit
# wishy washy to me. :)

I can only read this as saying that someone who has licensed some code
under the GPL can then relicense it under a modified GPL. Your use of the
word "then" implies that you are still talking about someone who does not
own the code.

Hence what I wrote above, and in the proceeding thread. If I mentioned
KDE, it is because it is a prime example of exactly what you were talking
about, and one we were both familiar with because of the thread.

-Greg