[ILUG] RMS: KDE in violation of GPL

[C. Hennessy]

Paul Jakma wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ruairi Newman wrote:
[snip]
> > No, they didn't.  All of the code in KDE is GPL'd.  QT isn't, but GPL'd
> > code wasn't incorporated into QT.
> 
> The GPL code on it's own is useless. It must call code in the QT
> library. Hence the KDE app is derived from the QT app. The QT licence
> is not GPL compatible, hence the KDE code is not GPL.
> 
> > If I'm missing something here please let me know with a slightly more
> > helpful statement than "you don't understand the GPL."
> >
> 
> KDE is not GPL compatible because of QT.
> 
> The problem is not in the terms of the GPL licence, it is that KDE
> is incompatible with the GPL and cannot be licenced under it.

Hence the GPL is also called a virus - once it gets into ANY part of
any library/code you use, then all of the other pieces must also
come under the GPL.

However RMS has a very high horse that ne cannot seem to get off of
in relation to KDE - he requested that the KDE developers "beg for
forgiveness" which seems to be the first time this was ever requested
of anybody who intentionally violated the GPL, never mind the KDE
people who did not intentionally try to violate the GPL.

Another thing : if I understand RMS, his prefered license is the
GPL, but now GNOME is licensed under the LGPL, and KDE under the
GPL - so what's the chances of hime "preferring" KDE ?

Con