[techtalk] KDE / OpenSource

[joey tsai]

This is the situation between KDE and QT, as interpreted by Debian.

Troll Tech's QT library can be redistributed QT if it's unchanged and along with
the QT license.

However, KDE, is under GPL.  It states that if you link GPLed KDE code against
the QT library and distribute it, you must distribute it under the GPL.  The GPL
gives you the all right to modify the source of the program, but this is in
conflict with the QT license. 

Furthermore, the GPL says if some conditions are imposed that would cause you to
contradict the license, you may distribute the program at all.

Although this is just Debian's take on the licensing issue, they're essentially
saying /noone/ is allowed to distribute KDE with QT.  Debian has a very
practical reasons for doing so though, as an all volunteer organization, they
would rather be on the safe side of the law.

The solutions presented have been to change the license.  In theory, all KDE
would have to do is give an exception to their GPLed code, saying that KDE can
be linked to QT and distributed without the GPL applying to KDE.  I think the
developers of LICQ have done exactly this.  But in practice this isn't happening
because there are large parts of KDE where the developers are no longer
available to give consent.  Worse, I think I've heard cases where KDE people
used GPLed code without consent to link and distribute with QT.

The other solution is for KDE to not link against the QPLed QT.  This could be
accomplished by Troll Tech changing their license, or by a GPLed replacement,
the Harmony project.  Unfortunately, I think Harmony's pretty much dead.

> The fact is, the KDE people and TrollTech both say it's fine to distribute it.

Actually, both the QPL and the GPL (of course) are DFSG free, but that's not the
issue.  Debian takes licensing quite seriously, and KDE isn't the first that's
been labeled undistributable.  Nor is it the last, I heard Galeon (the stripped
down gtk mozilla browser) has similar problems.