Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing

The Doctor What (docwhat@gerf.org)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:48:07 -0500


On Mon, Jul 13, 1998 at 06:33:11AM +0200, ralf@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 12:26:42PM -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> In court I'd try to say the OS system is SuSE (Not RedHat or Linux), which
> in current versions ships with KDE. Maybe it's nitpicking but following
> court decissions related to copyright and licensing issues I expect
> some strategy like this to be successful.

Okay. If I define a distribution as SuSE or RedHat or whatever. Then I
can distribute a copy of QT linked KDE (a binary...) that will install on
SuSE (which has QT). However, that same binary will have to *not* install
on non-SuSE distributions (i.e. RedHat as it stands now).

This is moot if all the source code for KDE is GPL + changes for QT, but I
didn't think that is the case. Is *all* the KDE source (the actual KDE
package, as distributed from kde.org) only been worked on by people who
have said that it's okay to work under the GPL + changes for QT license?

If the authors haven't said one way or another, then you can't assume that
this licensing is okay. KDE was distributed and "beta tested" with a GPL
license enclosed. It doesn't mention making an exception for QT linking.

If I contributed software to KDE and I only saw the GPL license, I would
think it reasonable to expect that the GPL license would be upheld and
that linking to QT would be forbidden for purposes of distribution.

It appears, tho, that for some KDE projects (off-core) that the authors
wishes are being disregarded. GIMP is GPL, 100%. They never intended it
(to my knowledge) to be linked in a non-GPL fasion. In fact, they went so
far as to write their own ToolKit to avoid this problem!

Remember, this is regards to the distribution of a final product, the
binary. You can still ship KDE, GIMP, KGIMP, and QT all in source form
and say: "you the user can, for private use, compile this and use," much
as someone would have to do to use GPL code with Motif on non-Motif OS's
(like RedHat or whatever).

Anyway, this is my thoughts. I just would like people to stop saying "KDE
sux", "GNOME sux", etc. The people who worked on KDE have a nice product,
but it has some legal ambiguity regarding anyone's ability to distribute
it's binaries. That's all. Am I wrong?

docwhat@gerf.org

> Make your conclusions. I'd say one point for RMS & GNU/Linux.
>
> Ralf
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html