[techtalk] KDE license?

[Rik Hemsley]

#if Dan Nguyen
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:59:29AM +0100, Sunnanvind wrote:
> > Rik; you mentioned that you knew the KDE license.
> > Could you or anyone else please explain why the KDE license is not bad?
> > Including QT etc.
> 
> First KDE uses the QT toolkit from Troll Tech, and QT is released
> under the QPL, which is ``open.''  But the main problem is that KDE is
> released under the GPL, which isn't bad.  The GPL has clauses which
> try to guarentee that GPLed code is not ``hijacked,'' and closed up.
> So to do that GPL code can only be linked against GPL or LGPL code (or
> others).  There are ways around this, for example the QT gui plugin
> for licq is released under the GPL.  But this is not a problem because
> the author of the QT gui has given permission to link his code against
> QT.  However the KDE authors have not done the same with KDE.  Another
> problem is that KDE is larger project than licq, and many people
> donate code to KDE which means that those authors too must give
> permission.  

The fact is that there's no problem linking GPL code to QPL code.
The reason that we haven't written 'We would explicity state that
we allow linking with QPL code' is that there _is_ no problem.

Someone suggested we did this a while back, to appease the Debian
people, but we decided that it would be tantamount to admitting
that there is a problem. A bit like saying 'I promise not to
kill anyone again' when you never killed anyone in the first
place :)

Cheers,
Rik

-- 
135. Displace the canon with attitude.

************
techtalk at linuxchix.org   http://www.linuxchix.org