Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 01:24:36PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> everybody else has to abide by the terms of the license under which the
> software is released, and the GPL is quite clear about what you can
> and can't do. In particular, you have to distribute all of the code
> under the same terms as the GPL (with an exception for system libraries
> that normally come with the OS/compiler/etc, *except* when those system
> libraries are distributed along with the code in question. Qt doesn't
> qualify because it is not a system library normally distributed with the
> OS and even if it was, we still wouldn't be allowed to distribute it
> along with, say, KDE or kgv).
Craig refers to this paragraph:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
Now, the GPL specifically says that the source code for the bit that
is normally distributed with the "major components" of the OS need
not accompany the source code to the program licensed under the GPL
itself. It does not, however, state that the normally-distributed-with-OS
part need not be licensed under the GPL.
This is very interesting, indeed.
It's hard to say what the intention of rms was on this. It's even
harder to say what the legal interpretation of this will be. The
commonly-held conception of the GPL is that if you link to a library
licensed under the GPL, your program must also be GPL. The only way
I can see this happening is with the following section:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
..which would cover #includes.
If the commonly-held conceptions are indeed legally true, and what I
thought to be true is true as well, then wouldn't including Qt in
main, which would be considered being distributed with the major
components of the operating system, fulfill this dependency and render
the GPL-compatibility point moot?
Reply to: