[ILUG] RMS: KDE in violation of GPL

[Jimmy O'Regan]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, C. Hennessy wrote:

) Paul Jakma wrote:
) > 
[snip]
) > 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.
I think you're deliberately reading into this negatively. RMS was pointing
out that since they have previously violated the GPL, they need to have
their GPL rights reinstated. And this constitutes seeking forgiveness for
their violation. I don't think there's anyone out there who would deny
them forgiveness, so there's no real problem. 
) 
) 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 ?
Qt is QPL/GPL/commercial - triple licensed. The KDE libraries are LGPL.
GTK/GNOME libs are LGPL. Just about everything else in GNOME is GPL. The
rest of KDE is mostly GPL, with some under the Artistic license.

But aside from all that, GNOME is a GNU project, so that's *always* going
to get preference.
) 
) Con
) 
) 

--
"The Information Superhighway made it possible for the average person
to find out what some nerd thinks about Star Trek"

http://lit.compsoc.com/
http://www.litsu.ie/