Slashdot Mirror
Debian Developer And QT License Contributer Speaks
NRLax27 writes: "Freshmeat has an interesting editorial up by Joseph Carter on the issues surrounding Debian and KDE. Carter is a member of the Debian team, and spent much time working with the Troll Tech fellas trying to make the QPL compatible with the GPL." Interesting bit. Worth a read if you're interested in the licensing issues.
So why pick on KDE if GNOME does it to. Such a fucking zealot.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
Possibly good enough, actually: check out section #9 of the GPL:
So the problem would only exist in those cases where the programs specified a specific version of the GPL.
--
--
The GPL was a great idea when it was created. And it's definitely suitable for applications. But if you're developing libraries, anyone should be allowed to use your libraries, even if their program is licensed under the GPL and your libraries aren't. If the whole world used only GPL licenses, then it might be great. But let's face it, we're never going to have only free software. And if the GPL isn't changed to accommodate "semi-free" software, I don't think it should be used at all, because it doesn't allow one to use all of the resources available.
Don't waste your breath. I've argued this many times before, and got shouted down every time. :-)
One specific part of the license that I don't like is the patchware clause.
:)). Somehow, I doubt GNOMErs will idly sit by and allow that to go. Troll Tech put some valuable time into their product and they do not wish it be confused with anything else. It's as simple as that.
I must say, this is complete and utter bullshit. Quoting the QPL:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications:
Why does everyone want to interpret "such as" as "only as?" "Such as" is a clause meaning things such as "for example" or "one possibility is." It in no way implies as the only solution. The key to this clause is the nine words preceding "such as." It must be a separate form. This can be as simple as joes-super-duper-extra-qt-2.1.1.tar.gz. Troll Tech just wishes you to make it distincly clear to your users that what you offer is a modified Qt, and not their official Qt. Is this asking too freaking much for you people?? How about I take gnome, change it to forward any passwords to a secret log on a cracked account I have and name it helix-desktop-1.0.tar.gz (or a scheme GNOME uses, I don't keep up with it so I don't know a verbatim name to use
Now that this is cleared up, please, go out and modify Qt to your heart's content. Make it better, faster, slower, worse. The license allows you.
Yes, KDE people could fix that but there is fundamental issue of GPL being , well , very restrictive what one can do with it.
Sooner or later somebody else will get into the same mess. Freedom that is _enforced_ is not freedom at all. As far as I know BSD has no such a problem, it is really free.
GPL is not free. Even when RMS says so. There is a simple meaning for the word "freedom" and GPL , unfortunately, doesn't qualify here.
I saw that once ... I was eating lunch and reading /. ...
I don't click on anything anymore when I eat
Too dangerous.
The second part is a very good point. As I read it, propriatary operating systems CAN'T ship with GPL'd software. This is extremely interesting -- I don't know about Solaris, but IRIX sure does....
--
"They say they want to create an open desktop that can be a Unix standard. But they want the standard part more than the open part. "
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, first off it IS open. And it's also free. It's merely a conflict of licenses. If I was a programmer for either of the above, I'd have taken great offense at your comments, but I'm not. Just because a company chooses a license other than GPL , which I like very much, but many programmers find it too restrictive on their rights, doesn't mean they're evil or out to collapse the GPL, the FSF, and the GNU project.
"they're just lying, cheating hypocrites" ..."The KDE team members who think like this and the Troll people who keep avoiding making QT free aren't members of the community.
What?!?!?! QT IS free!!!! They're not members of the community because they don't use the GPL? The GPL isn't the only free software license, both programs are free, and KDE is almost all GPL, if I'm not mistaken, the only part of KDE that isn't GPL is the links to QT libs. Lay off if you don't understand what's going on.
"God is REAL
Some people who work on KDE think like this. They want to kill off projects that do the same things as KDE. People who work on GNOME think like this, too. It is bad to think like this.
it's green.
As far as I can see, no one here is demanding Debian include KDE in the distribution. On the other hand, Debian is demanding KDE take their interpretation of the GPL. This has been rehashed over and over (see the kde-licensing list for even a discussion with a lawyer on the subject).
I run KDE and hardly ever use swap either.
The trick, my friend, is to buy more memory. It is cheap and easily accesible. Try it.
Actually, I have. The QPL is not violated by linking GPL apps to Qt software. I never said it was.
The problem is, when you try to go the other way, you violate the GPL. This is where the trouble comes in. It is the problem with a two-license system like KDE/Qt. It doesn't matter that one license is compatible with the other license. Both licenses must be made to be compatible with each other. This is where KDE hits a snag; the compatibility only works one way.
It's one tiny little sentence. That's all it takes; it really is that simple. Unless the KDE team has been keeping shoddy records (and I doubt they would; they understand that they have an important project so record-keeping is important), they should still have contact information for everyone who contributed. I don't think a single one of them would object to making their software legal to distribute (they gave it to KDE to distribute, after all), and once this is settled then the licensing exception can be added extremely easily; I could do it with a two-line shell script.
And that's really all there is to it. The licensing issues vanish. Debian can include KDE, and the other distros that already do can then do it legally. All the KDE team has to do is swallow their pride, admit they made a little mistake, and add one line to their license to rectify the problem. Are they so arrogant that they can't even admit to one minor oversight? I wouldn't think they would be; they've always led me to believe they were a nice bunch. So what's the problem?
This really should be moderated down, as it is inaccurate. KDE binaries don't violate the GPL -- GPL programs can link to whatever libraries they have permission to link to, be they GPL, BSD, commercial, or whatever. Remember, GNU itself originally was a set of utilities that ran on commercial Unixes. The GPL existed before GPL'd libc's... No, the license being violated by the distribution of KDE binaries is TrollTech's own QT license. But QT's unacceptable license is not the major issue it should be, because QT is not suing RedHat, SuSE, etc. They are allowing their license to be violated, but they have absolutely no legal obligation to continue to do so (unlike trademark law, where monopoly privileges expire if one does not defend them).
You're forgetting one thing DragonHawk: the hardcore GPL zealots don't care just what the GPL says. ... No matter how many times you actually quote the GPL, you'll only get shouted down.
People can believe whatever they want to believe. Belief won't change what the GPL actually says. They can shout all they want; the words stay the same. RMS can change the GPL; people can still choose to use the "current" version for KDE.
Now, perhaps Debian's leadship believes KDE violates the GPL in this way. That is their choice. The rest of the world is not obligated to agree. If you disagree but still want to use Debian, that is between you and the Debian leaders.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
If you can use BSD code in GPL apps, why can't you use QPL code in GPL apps?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It was a joke. Laugh.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Bad choice of words: "KDE admitted"
KDE is not a monolithic, hierarchial organisation with one voice. A glance at the Licensing discussions on kde-devel will show you that there are a multitude of opinions on the subject within the KDE project. A glance at the various licenses used by the applications (kdelibs is all LGPL, but the rest is mixed) will also show you that there is no consensus regarding licensing within KDE.
Some parts of the KDE community don't use the GPL, some use the GPL and apply the exemption, and yet others use the GPL and don't see the need for the exemption.
Oh, and that slashback you point to doesn't have any mention of what any KDE people say. It only has the commentary of someone who is clearly biased against KDE.
Excuse me, since when is it easier to change to source than to FTP a different package? "Oh, I think I'll upgrade to KDE2 now by changing the code. It is way to much trouble to download it." Or are you on a 300bps modem or something? If it hampers you, sure. But I get the impression that there are a lot of people who really have no use for the code, but like to bitch at others about it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What does CmdrTaco mean by that? Sorry, English is not my forte and I would appreciate a translation.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This might have been a reasonable argument in 1996, but it isn't now, as every Linux distribution I can think of ships with Qt, just like Solaris ships with Motif.
I think a lot of the reason for the non-inclusion of KDE (remember, kdelibs is LGPL, so no legal problem there) is simply bias against it because
- it is not GNOME
- it is mostly written in C++, and not in God's Own Language, C
Go ahead, mod me down, KDE-haters; see if I care.--
But if the GPL came first, wasn't mixing incompatible licenses KDE's fault? Don't get me wrong: I never read fine print, either. However, I don't encourage thousands of people to use my "hello world"-level code. These guys are supposed to be professionals, don't they RTFL(icense)?
I use KDE, but I have to admit, the licensing conflicts are a concern. If they're thoughtless about something like code licensing, how do they react to security issues? And the response that you toss off, pure arrogance: "change the GPL." How many people have released code under the GPL? Who's going to call all of them and ask if it's OK?
Between all that and the deluge of useless stuff that installs with KDE under SuSE, I'm thinking of just canning it in favor of something lighter. Maybe back to E?
-jpowers
-jpowers
Sure it does. Look how "empowered" KDE developers are now. They thought it GPL was freedom and now limitations keep poping up. ...
One hell of a free license we have here dude
that's nice for you that you don't care about what licenses your software is under.
but it really doesn't make it irrelevent at all.
and actually the article isn't just saying that qt or kde license is wrong. it just says that you can't link gpl code to qpl and be legal.
really your comment misses the point.
First, make sure you're not confusing Troll Tech and KDE. KDE is a project that happens to use a (now free software, DFSG, Open Source compliant) library owned and distributed by Troll Tech.
Second, the "KDE crew" cannot be generalised. Some agree with Debian, some disagree, and some don't even use the GPL, choosing a more free license instead.
There's not an indifference on the side of KDE. There's just a real community, with the real disagreements that result. A consensus on whether a MacOS-style menubar should be the default can't be reached; how could anyone expect agreement on something as politically sensitive as licensing?
The QPL is good enough that Debian considers it free, and considering how picky they are about such things, I'll take their word for it. Whose definition of free are you using?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
qt header files
This is an interesting question.
The GPL says:
"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."
Header files are interface definition files, of course. But does the above restriction refer to interfaces to the GPL program, or to the libraries it depends on? The GPL doesn't say, specifically, but given the context of "modules it contains" in the previous English clause, I think, legally, this refers to the GPL program. Of course, IANAL. Only the courts can decide for sure.
Now, this may be a loophole in what RMS intended the GPL to be. He's free to correct it, of course. But the KDE people are also free to not incorporate his correction.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Not everyone uses linux for political or spiritual reasons. In fact most people just want to get a job done. It would be just plain silly not to give the majority, who want to get something done, no option to easily do this in debian.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I understand that the author is trying to explain that the problem is not either license but simply the fact that the lisences are incompatible. (although red hat, kde, troll tech, etc would say they are compatible.) This is interesting because until today I had only heard that it wasn't not "free" enough.
however i wish the author had gone into specifics about why they were incompatible and what things that the troll tech guys changed to the qpl after he thought that it was going to work.
also it would have been interesting to hear what the "one big mistake" that he personally felt responsible for.
then i think i could really evaulate the issues better to see if red hat etc were really violating the gpl.
As usual this article mentions a lot of compatibiliy issues. This is fine execept:
:^)
It doesn't say what they are!
If you really want something fixed, it would
make a lot of sense to state what that is.
As for the distribution being illegal... it's
a somewhat far fetched argument. Remember the
KDE is stuff is released by KDE under GPL license.
If something doesn't make sense in the way they
license the code - who exactly could sue?
Seems like only KDE developers could do that.
That probably is the reason why most distributions
don't care - it's a thoroughly mute point.
It would really only matter if KDE would break
someone else's copyright - they are perfectly
entiteled to break their own.
If they violate someone else's rights: please explain!
It really doesn't make sense to write an article
and assume everybody knows every detail of the
discussed topic...
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"
Suing KDE will kill every last bit of credibility that FSF have. .. stay away from GPL and its idealistic warfare.
KDE people made mistake releasing it under GPL.
That's a lesson for anybody thinking about starting something similar.
Do what Apache, Perl, TCL, BSD, XFree and countless others did
Noone is forcing anyone to anything. The KDE
people had the full choice of license, but they
chose the GPL. All the KDE people have to do
is to change their license slightly, to add
an exception for the QPL. Nothing else. Until
they do so, distributing KDE binaries violates
their license, and KDE's refusal to change the
license is a direct attack on the credibility of
the GPL. This has nothing to do with wether
the GPL is a good license or not.
make the QPL compatible with the GPL
Why not make the GPL more compatible with the GPL? This would have the added benefit of making the GPL more compatible with numerous other licenses and would prevent much of this non-sense in the future. This is especially true considering there are no major sticking points in the QPL which prevent widespread acceptance.
There are only a small number of people who keep crying foul whenever something comes up that does not agree with their base philosophy. Rather than changing their philosphy to be more widly accepted among the broader community, they only sit back and force others to comply with the One True Way. Sounds like an inquisition or a holocaust in the making.
Problem #1: there is only one "true" Qt, not only one "true" KDE. Qt is distributed under QPL which says you cannot fork it. KDE is distributed under GPL which says anyone can fork it.
Problem #2: to have only one "true" Qt, it is much better to call for trademark law. In the current situation, you can't have a qxt derived from qt, although your qxt has no intention to fake a qt.
Problem #3: now there is no legal KDE at all, not even one. Once KDE got more than a few dozens of developers, it is basically impossible for even the KDE main distribution site to ask for permission from each of them.
The GPL allows you to link your software with restrictive libraries if they are system components, _BUT_ then you may _NOT_ distribute that software with the system.
You can consider Qt a system library however much you wish. That makes it legal to distribute KDE. But, it also makes it explicitly illegal to distribute KDE together with the OS.
Yes, technology calls for standard, and that's why there is LSB.
But that really don't mean all of us have to use the same distribution, be it Redhat, Debian, SuSE, Slackware or whatever! People do WANT choice. If technology can't give them, who can?
Oh come on !! ...
They have created quite usable solution which Linux was lacking and released it for free ( as in freedom ) and you are elevating unintentional license violation to the level of software piracy?
And that last remark about moral issues ? Gee
It is political for you guys isn't ?
Troll Tech can say anything that they like. But their permission to let you write GPLed software doesn't make it legal to distribute said software along with QT.
Go read the description of the conflict for yourself.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Hehe, oops. Must have more coffee.:)
This isnt as much an issue with Qt as it is with truly proprietary libraries. It was more to illustrate why the GPL is the way it is; Qt and KDE is mostly just an unfortunate causualty of carelessness regarding licenses.
Qt could, theoretically, be forked and development could continue with patches or an entirely free version (I dont remember the exact legal setup of that).
GTK, if they changed (unlikely, many authors and no single copyright holder there), could be forked with no problem and a free branch continue, like with all lgpl libraries.
A truly proprietary toolkit couldnt be forked, and it is mostly those the GPL is worded to prevent linking with.
It's only libel if it's false and I know it to be false. However, I've proven it to be true right here.
In other words, Mr. Bastian, fuck off. I will not be silenced by legal threats from a meta-organization that doesn't even exist as a legal entity.
First the note. There seems to be some confusion about what the problem is. Here is a description of exactly how the conflict arises.
Which leads to the question. Is there anything in principle to stop Debian from shipping Qt along with a separate installer and KDE source-code that will allow the target machine to compile a clean copy locally? Then no distribution of tainted binaries has taken place but KDE has been successfully shipped...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
What this means in real life is that if you are considering using Qt at a company or university, you should evaluate it like any other commercial, proprietary toolkit, including its cost. Whether employee or student, your institution can probably not afford to commit to making all their GUI code free or open source up-front (even if a lot of their code may end up open source later).
And even with all the free effort KDE developers have put into enhancing Qt for Troll Tech, at $1500-$2400/developer, I don't think it's very competitive compared to other proprietary or free toolkits. But that's something you have to evaluate for yourself.
So you would actually sue someone who just did you a favour ? Knowing well that your argument about modifiable source , while legally correct, is completely bogus from the moral point of view.
Is this about technical excelency or is this about "changing the world" ?
The Qt code was only about eighty thousand lines long (probably longer now), versus many hundreds of thousand of lines of code for KDE.
It seems to me that the answer is just to finish the Harmony project so we're freed from the QPL, and so that we can get this issue behind us once and for all.
"Does Troll Tech really believe developers will blindly follow just because they write code?"
Good code. Yes.That's reason good enough for me.
I am not here to change social makeup of the world.
I enjoy writing code at work and at home.
> But the part of the GPL that makes it GPL is the viral clause.
Please, try to cultivate the habit of calling it "inductive" rather than "viral".
If it were in fact "viral", there wouldn't be any problem; you could just take some non-GPL code, throw in a few lines of GPL to "infect" it, and presto - the whole mess would become GPL'd as a result of viral infection.
In reality, the GPL is inductive: If P is under the GPL and P' is derived from P, then P' must also be under the GPL. Anything that cannot abide this rule is a license violation.
I am pushing the distinction for two reasons. First, because "inductive" describes it more accurately, and is therefore more likely to lead to clear thinking about the topic; second, because "viral" generally has negative connotations, and is often used deliberately by people who want to disparage the GPL.
I'm not sure that making the proper distinction will help in the current debate, but we still need to use terminology that promotes an accurate and positive conception of the GPL.
None of the above to imply that I disagree with your post; you are absolutely correct.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Solaris doesn't ship with GPL'd software, you have to download it seperately.
.Z format and you need it to install all the other GNU Utils.
The first thing I do when I get a Solaris box is download gzip, because it comes in
5) Debian applies the "system library" exemption, since Qt is distributed with Debian, and just about every other Linux distribution.
6) Debian decides to see the light (it's only sarcasm, people) and interpret the GPL the way some other people do: that a dynamically linked executible does not actually included the non-GPL library code until runtime, and therefore is legal to distribute, as none of the non-GPL code is actually being distributed.
7) Debian can come out and admit that many of their core organizers don't want KDE, because they want to throw GNOME all the support possible.
As I read through the replies to this article, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at some of what I am reading here. Is this really Slashdot? Yes, unfortunately. People can post rather long replies to stories without understanding the first paragraph, and are thought of as insightful. Very well, let me clue you in on some insight you missed.
The main problem with the Qt license in KDE is that it stifles development of KDE. Because of the nature of the Qt license, changes must be supplied as a patch and recompile. The only legally distributed binaries are from the KDE maintainers themselves.
The license makes it hard to modify the Qt code itself, and KDE generally. The license makes the distibution of KDE as we now see it illegal. Because companies like Red Hat, Corel, etc. are technically illegally distibuting KDE and such, licenses in general, and in particular the GPL, are being undermined by general practice. If you do not defend your license, it becomes unenforcable, and everything the FSF and the Linux community has worked for is lost.
The article mentions several examples of this already happening in the sense of companies violating the GPL and getting away with it because of the situation with KDE (eg NVidia, Corel...).
The further problem is that Linux needed a desktop badly and KDE was "it" for awhile. The Troll tech guys, etc kept promising to "fix" the license while gaining marketshare. As long as they kept promising that, and opensource advocates kept believing it in good faith, KDE continued to be distributed unchallenged.
As more and more people became concerned with the situation, the Gnome project began in an effort to have a desktop that was truly free and could be modified under GPL. But it was too late, because KDE was already ubiquitous as planned.
Even now, as Gnome is comparable in performance and features to KDE, there are those who complain about its lack of stability versus KDE (personally I have not seen it, but then there are those who have said they never saw their windows box crash ;) ), which is the older project, and which is eroding the GPL by its very existence. Nevermind the illegality of this "default" desktop.
I think that the debian people are right to exclude KDE from their distribution, and by god we ought to support them in this. I like KDE, and it was the first Linux desktop i used. BUt as I became aware of the implications, I stopped using it, and switched to Gnome. If Gnome does not suit my needs, I have the benefit of source and can modify it at will without violating archaic licenses. I can include the whole modified version TOGETHER in an rpm if I wanted. And the most important thing is that I am not working towards a situation in which the Microsoft OS group can make a closed-source linux distro, distibute it for free, and take over the linux desktop like they did with Windows.
I understand that most people are pragmatic in that they don't want to use something just for its political value, as they do want to get work done and would like to evaluate a technical product on its technical merits. What teh article points out is that politics aside, the license of KDE makes it harder to modify, add features, fix bugs, etc, which is, I think a point that is all-too-often missed in the debate between pragmatic users and "rabid open source advocates."
Actually, KDE could function without Qt. That's the beauty of shared libraries: the code is interchangeable, if you maintain binary compatibility.
I think not using KDE in debian is not enough! All GPL programs that use LGPL libraries must be removed! (that means almost all) Why? In my opinion a program P is GPL-licensed exactly then if every component is GPL-licensed. So consider the following case: A is GPL-licensed B is a LGPL-licensed library Program P is created by linking B to A. P is derived from A, that is GPL-licensed therfore P must be GPL-licesensed. P is exactly then GPL-licensed if every component is GPL-licensensed therefore B must also be GPL-licensed but B is unfortunately LGPL-licensed what is a license-conflict!! If debian continues that way I will switch to a different distribution.
So what ever happened with Harmony? He indicates in his article that TT shut them down, but fails to provide any more info on the matter. I'd love to work on Harmony if they even still exist. If not, I'd be interested in starting a similar project. I'd like to know what exactly happened between the Harmony and TT folks first though - I don't care to get myself involved in any sort of legal action.
> No, the license being violated by the distribution of KDE binaries is TrollTech's own QT license. But QT's unacceptable license is not the major issue it should be, because QT is not suing RedHat, SuSE, etc. They are allowing their license to be violated, but they have absolutely no legal obligation to continue to do so
Kinda reminds a body of the GIF compression patent scam.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Bruce,
I'm assuming that your comments relate to my proposals, not the stuff regarding QT/KDE. Also, those were proposals, not statements of where things currently stand.
I'm not so sure that dynamic linking would be seen in a manner that you describe. Linking can be viewed as a manner via which two independent programs communicate. After all, a function call to a library can be seen in a manner very similar to RPC or CORBA calls. Linking doesn't have to mean that the library is part of the app, EVEN IF THE APP IS STATICALLY LINKED (since it can be argued that static linking is for convenience, and nothing more).
In a similar manner, I would view header code in the executable as an artifact of the mechanism of compiling, not a fundamental aspect of the nature of the program. Logically, they are seperate entities. Of course, once you distribute a compiled binary, you must comply with the license terms for each of the components, but we should be able to treat the components seperately.
Thus, I should be able to compile a GPL program that uses a QPL library, an X11 library, and a proprietary (say, patent-protected (eg. RSA)) library. Now, since the program is GPLed, I am required to give away the executable and the GPL's program source (including redistribution rights to both), but I could distribute the QPL library and X11 library in a manner which followed their licenses, and may not have to give away the proprietary lib. This is how things should work, not necessary how they do.
Yes, this does look alot like the model used in the MPL. Though the MPL still treats everything a part of the base program, which is erroneous in my view. I honestly can't understand how we currently can hold two seperate, conflicting views right now: that the license of a program can treat a libary as integral portion of the program, and yet that we can somehow license libaries seperately. Holding the two views is self-contradictory.
Honestly, I think we would solve 90% of our licensing conflicts, lose alot of the ill-feelings between the various camps of the OpenSource movement, and at the same time promote the free sharing of source code if we would stop treating libraries as a part of a program, and not as the individual entities they should be.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Perhaps once what they did could have been unintentional. However the fact is that they have taken not a single step to correct this after THREE YEARS in some cases. If this were Microsoft and not Joe Linux Hacker, you'd expect it resolved in THREE DAYS.
http://www-eleves.enst-bretagne.fr/~chavarri/xmps/
Here lives xmps and it is the one that can play divX. not xmms. By the way about legality - xmps is not distributed linked with divx. They only have a page on how user can do this himself.
xanim was doing the same for years. As you can see people bend over backwards to keep things legal. But I guess KDE is just too good for that. (Or aimed at users who wouldn't bother to compile thing?)
After reading this and other articles I think that Debian is indeed in the correct legal position here. I don't happen to use Debian, but I might switch.
What I just did though was send a message to legal@redhat.com letting them know that if they continue to distribute in violation of the GPL they could lose my support.
If you believe in this issue then speak up and let your voice be heard. Let your distribution know that the GPL is important to you.
Subject line says it all. It's all they can be expected to do. If they have trouble doing it then they have trouble. But right now they're denying there's a problem, much less trying to fix it.
Read my profile, it'll tell you what I do.
Debian claims that the GPL and the QTL are incompatible.
KDE is left out of Debian because KDE is distributed under the GPL, but links against QT, this should not be legal. Now, this situation isn't really anyones fault but is more of an oversight.
Now the Debian people want KDE to fix this problem by adding a clause to the license on their software that specifically allows this case.
The KDE people do not want to do this because it would take too much work to contact all of those people and get permission to change the license their code is being released under.
Now given all of that information, it means that all of those distributions that distribute KDE now are doing so illegally.
The only thing is, that's not the whole story.
The GPL allows you to link your software against libraries with a more restricted license if, and only if, the library in question is a system library.
This is everything I was able to gleen from the sitution from reading these posts. I have a few questions though that I would like to see addressed.
Firstly, what precisely does it take to consider a library a system library?
Second, Given this situation I can only assume that all of these other distributions consider QT a system library, and that is how they are distributing KDE. Is this true?
Third, why does Debian not just consider QT a system library, since I understand they do in fact distribute QT as part of their core package?
I have read the GPL and it leaves the defintion of system library somewhat vauge. I am wondering if perhaps the reason that Debian does not consider QT a system library is because by doing so they set a precedent that makes it somewhat easy to consider a library a 'system library' thereby weakening the GPL?
IANAL
Well, regardless of wether that is the case or not. It has occured to me that if the majority of the major distributions forced KDE to change their license to be included, by denying that QT is a system library, this would set a good precedent for the GPL, because it raises the bar for what a library has to be in order to be considered a system library. If so, I think that that would be A Very Good Thing.
My opinion on this matter comes down to this; If considering QT a system library weakens the GPL in any way, then it shouldn't be done. Since the only other way to rectify this problem is for KDE to go through the license change hassle, then so be it.
On the other hand, if QT is in fact a system library, then there is no problem, and the Debian folks should include KDE since there is nothing to worry about.
Sigs are awesome huh?
Erm.. there are standards. Both RedHat and Debian are Linux. Linux is a kernel, and every Linux distro by definition uses a form of that kernel. Then there are things like POSIX compliance, X11, TCP/IP, all standards which are followed in the crafting of a Linux Distro.
There are not programs AFAIK that will only run on one distro and not another, though there are programs that say "For Red Hat" simply because they are distributed in RPM (which works on Solaris, Debian, all sorts of systems) and because the company or group that made it tested on Red Hat.
By the same token, Windows is supposed to run on Dell, Compaq, etc, but not specifically ABC Computers' boxes. Yet it does, because of standards in PC hardware.
It seems to me that the whole point of dynamic linking is the fact that the library code doesn't have to be included in the executible, right? That's a major benefit of the technology, to make the binary executible smaller.
:-)
With my copy of libqt.so.2.1.1 weighing in at 5.5MB, I don't think it's fair to say that dynamic linking is being used to circumvent the GPL.
Rather, I think a loophole of the GPL is being used. Would you agree that it'd be nice for a GPL 3 to be released, that would finally put to rest this argument, to the satisfaction of all parties? A GPL 3 that would take into account all sorts of wierd situations (new linking, Application Service Providers, and other things)?
Also, I was wondering whether you have written, or know of someone else who has written, a detailed argument of how dynamic linking should be treated the same? I'd like to think that somebody who feels as you do has considered the issue enough to have written more than two sentences on it.
As for DDD: it's GPL. LessTif is LGPL. What's the problem?
--
How does FUD like this get moderated up? The FSF/GNU recognises the freeness of other licenses. Before you go putting words in their mouth, Why not see what they have to say at www.gnu.org?
There is nothing wrong with having what license you want. The problem comes when you violate the GPL. KDE violates the GPL and as such, works against the efforts of the people who have tried to create GPL'd software. How would you like someone else subverting your work?
If you create a software package, use the license you wish. If you want to call it Open Source, or Free Software, there are some basic guidelines, but this is only to create standards that reduce confusion in the market.
Even ESR agrees, IIRC that there are situations that call for other licenses. However it would all be better, IMHO if we just used GPL. Nevertheless, using a different license will not cause you to be boycotted. Do you see GNU calling for an end to Perl, Mozilla, and any number of other non-GPL'ed yet quite free projects?
Just update the debian installation programs and add external resources (KDE, GNOME, ...) by default so these packages automatically get downloaded from KDE's or other's websites. This way the user wouldn't even recognize if those external programs have been distributed within debian or not...
Because the BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL... where the QPL is *more* restrictive. It disallows certian types of distribution.
The GPL is perfectly happy to coexist with any other license, provided that license places no more restrictions on the code that the GPL itself.
So the BSD license, the Artistic license, etc... are fine, since they are actually more 'free' than the GPL is.
Anyhow... the QPL may be free (beer), but it ain't free (speech).
I am just bitching a bit about GPL (which in my opinion is simply way to ristrictive to be called free.)
They state in GPL "Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally."
Reuse of software ? It is exactly opposite of that.
They forbid that, unless one agrees with their specific meaning of freedom. How does it help in promoting "reuse of software." It seem that BSD type license is about reuse, cause one can do anything with it but GPL ?
Anyone ever answered that simple question ?
OK, so Cygwin (mostly GPLed software ported to Win32) is illegal. Red Hat is a den of hypocrites.
Because you can do almost anything you like to *BSD code. Anyone can build binarys and then sell them as if they wrote it themselves with whatever sick liscence they like... The author's interests are not protected in any way beyond some versions of the liscence requiring a mention of them. In that case, the addition of some undisclosed bit of proprietary code prevents the free redistribution mentioned in the liscence from taking effect. You just say "SOME PART OF THIS APPLICATION HAS THIS LISCENCE ON IT" without identifying what part.
.
BSD code can be hijacked by anyone. Thats why the GPL.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
a-ha! So why don't you make QT a part of the OS? QT even meets Debian's free software guidelines, as you stated before.
That would solve the problem for Debian, but it wouldn't stop people from distributing KDE binaries for other distributions/platforms, which would still be technically illegal. So, it wouldn't solve the underlying problems:
Disrespect for the GPL. You soulless pragmatists mouthing off out there, you want to know why everyone who cares about free software is up in arms? Because there is a lot of software out there under the GPL, a license which solidly gives those rights that the developers want to give, but which hasn't been tested in court. And we don't want that first test to be filled with a lot of crap about "look at all these KDE developers, here, letting people trample all over their GPL, so it must be ok". Well, it's not OK. The GPL prohibits linking your code against non-system, non-GPL code. If you want your code to stay free software, but you want it to be linked against code with a sharply different license, you use the LGPL or append a special exception to the GPL, like the KDE developers should have done.
Sure, the KDE developers are just peachy about you linking your code to Qt, but is all the code getting linked from KDE developers? I think kfloppy was a possible example: if you take someone's GPLed code, link it against yours, and link that against Qt, then you are breaking their license, whether you claim your code is GPLed or not. And you know what, it pisses some of us off when the GPL gets broken, whether the people doing the breaking are among the "good guys" or not.
Oh, and BTW, does this mean that ddd (www.gnu.org/software/ddd/) is illegal to run under Linux?
No. For one thing, DDD works fine with lesstif now. But even when it only worked with Motif, it was legal to distribute DDD source code, or DDD binaries dynamically linked against Motif system libraries. But it is illegal to distribute Linux ddd binaries statically linked against Motif, which I think does occur. That should be stopped, too, or the DDD license should include a special exception; it's just not as high profile a case as KDE.
Hrm, KFloppy is released under the GPL. So...what's the problem?
/usr/src/linux/COPYING on most any available Linux box. Note that this is exactly what KDE needs, but in order to get it, all of the developers whose code is in KDE must agree to insert said license modification. This is the reason that it hasn't been done.
Do you see KFloppy in Debian? It suffers the same problems that KDE does in linking to QT.
using this argument, you can argue that Netscape Communicator for Linux is illegal, since at some point they'd have to use kernel includes.
No, you cannot. The linux kernel license has a specific exception that allows software to interface with the kernel as "normal use" and not a derived work. Look for yourself. It's at the very top of the file
What the fuck is that "spirit of free software" ?
If I write something and let anybody use it as they please, is that free enough or should I make sure that beside writing free software, I advance some sort of new social brotherhood or some other crap ?
Sometimes I think KDE made a great mistake choosing GPL as their license. This kind of problems is exactly why XFree folks stay away from GPL. Go for BSD license and nobody will ever bitch about your code not being "free" enough or violating this or that. Real freedom.
Under current interpretation of copyright law, linking is considered making a derivative work.
You mean under current interpretations by Debian, don't you?
If not, I'd like to see some backup for this claim!
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
You've nicely described The Great KDE Conspiracy, could you now be so kind as to name the conspirators, or don't you dare because the would surely send their hitsquads for you if you did?
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
Don't forget that there's the Free-KDE-Qt-Foundation, so in the unlikely case that TT would stop updating the Free Edition of Qt, the last free version would automatically be released under the BSD license!
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
You know what ? This sounds like even bigger mess than we have in commercial world. How the hell free software community ended up there ?
No, you don't seem to quite understand who is saying what.
People are demanding KDE be included in Debian. People *want* KDE in Debian, and that the issue comes up some many times means that there is some significant number of people who are putting pressure on Debian to include KDE.
Debian isn't demanding KDE take their interpretation of the GPL. Debian is simply saying, "We cannot include KDE in our distribution because of what we see as some legal issues regarding the mixing of licenses." Because of the pressure people put on them to include KDE in Debian proper, Debian has tried to work out an acceptable compromise with KDE. It hasn't worked out, so Debian will not include KDE in the main distribution.
That's fine by me, and I respect that choice. It seems a shame that you can't respect it either.
Debian is correct about the QT vs GPL license issue, however they ARE picking nits. The fact that KDE NEEDS to be linked against QT means that it is IMPLIED that it is OK to do so. The KDE team would NEVER take task against anyone who distributed KDE under the terms of it's license (GPL). Any distro that includes KDE has a snow ball's chance in hell of being sued. Debian knows this. They are making a stand here against licenses that are not 100% free. In this case it's a mix of licenses that don't play well with each other. There probably are non-offical .deb's of kde so anyone who wants to use KDE in debian can. Ask on debian-user and someone will probably even give you the url.
Having said all that, I am using Gnome. I have seen both (redhat has both, default is gnome) and I just like gnome better. (It's 'geekier'). I like debian, but I sometimes feel that they are politicaly too left wing to my taste. The underpinings of debian is sound though, and I can easily add whatever software I feel correct, even if it is NOT strickly 'free'. 'nuff said!
The only people who's rights are being trampled on here are the authors of KDE. They own the code, and the fact the they used the GPL doesn't mean anything if they don't wan't to enforce it. Yes redistribution is illegal, but as the old saying goes "you can't rape the willing." They could liscence the code under the single rule "It's illeagal to distribute this code" and it would be effectively the same.
.
I would perfer that they just didn't have a liscence at all than mocking the GPL like that, but they have the right to contradict themselves.
.
I have heard that some of the code was adopted by KDE, and that would be a whole other kettle of fish. They just have no liscence.
.
Now if you could convice them to sue themselves for violation of thier copyright....
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
That's a very interesting opinion. Do you per chance have evidence that this is the case?
Look, people. Debian doesn't exclude KDE out of spite. I doesn't exclude KDE because it's not Open-Source. It excludes it because, at the moment, IT's NOT FREAKIN LEGAL to include it. This is due to what is, sadly, a rather boneheaded oversight by the KDE team when they chose to use the GPL for their license. The GPL explicitly states that if you can't distribute all the source used in the program under its terms (or less restrictive ones), then you cannot distribute the program at all. QPL is more restrictive than GPL, and therefore it is technically illegal to distribute KDE unless you have explicit permission from Troll Tech.
There's an exception to this rule built into the GPL. This exception states that files which "normally" come with the operating system do not count towards this restriction. This is very important, because without it there's no legal way to make GPL'd software on closed-source operating systems. However, Qt does not qualify for this exception, since it doesn't "normally" come with Linux. You either have to download it or get it in a distro.
Now, this was overlooked by the KDE team when they chose to use the GPL for KDE. It was a rather boneheaded mistake, but an understandable one since, to my knowledge, an issue like this had never come up before. It is also trivially easy to fix. All it takes is one measly sentence in their licenses, where they explicitly state that you are allowed to link against Qt. That is all it takes. And yeah, it's embarassing to admit you made a mistake, but who cares so long as the problem is fixed?
Qt is Open-Source. Debian includes it. KDE is also Open-Source. The problem is that its license clashes with Qt's in a rather nasty way, so it's not legal to include it. All KDE has to do is add one tiny little sentence to their license, and everything is in the free and clear. Much easier than changing the license completely. It holds true to the principles under which KDE was developed (unless arrogance was one of those principles, and I very much doubt that). I do it myself with one of my own projects that uses PowerPlant (a decidedly proprietary application framework for MacOS). So what's the big deal? It's one sentence, and all of the licensing issues vanish.
So, and this is an honest question: why the heck haven't they done it?
So that's why recently I couldn't find binary packages of DDD compiled with real Motif. ...
Now it matters not since I can compile it myself
>Yes, emacs and gcc are used on non-free systems, but not that the GPL specificly allows you to link GPL code
.debs of KDE, but not QT, then the Debian team would be breaking the law. However, if they shipped .debs of QT *and* KDE, it would be OK.
agains non-GPL libraries *if they are system libraries* (and are distributed with the OS).
Your argument invalidates the argument against KDE. Go back and re-read everything if you don't believe me.
Hell, the point is, the only way distribution of KDE is illegal is if the OS in question doesn't ship QT as well. If Debian were to ship
I use Linux-Mandrake 7.0. It ships with both. Quite frankly, it also ships with several config tools, some of which are based on Qt. One could argue that these can be considered system files. Hell, you could get into legal hot water with this definition just by shipping a 100% statically-linked Linux distro, and ship *one* commercial app with pre-compiled GPLed libs with no source code.
Yeah, you may disagree with me, but this is the sort of argument that could be made by a defense team on a jury to invalidate any arguments made to the contrary.
--
This is fricking joke. I mean, this sounds even worse of what goes on in commercial world. ...
Free software is not so free, after all
But that is freedom ? It is not like somebody someday will delete all BSD code from everywhere in the world BUT their own server and then proudly release one and only , ultimate package for the world to buy.
BSD is about freedom. If somebody thinks they are better server by not releasing code to the public, fine, it is their right to do so. If what OpenSource community states it's true they will not benefit much from it.
But freedom means freedom. GPL changed meaning of that world to suite their own agenda. GPL is like socialism, great concept but completely unworkable in real world ( in other words, GPL will be total pain until every and each piece of software is released under GPL.)
KDE is a perfect example of this.
That, of course, would simply be putting the software in the public domain. The reason RMS did not do this is because putting code in the public domain would allow non-free software developers to take the code, incorporate it into their software, then sell it under a non-free license.
The GPL was well thought through. It permits free sharing of code as long as the recipient also permits free sharing of code.
So, if I were a proprietary developer, I'd choose GPL 3, fiddle a bit with the GPL'ed applications to give them a slightly different look, make them incompatible, and off I go selling them (without sources of course).
The GPL gives rights to the USER, not the programmer, in fact thats the whole idea behind it.
Maybe this is also the reason why people like RMS as he is. If he were less radical, or ever likely to change stances, we'd be taking a big risk.
-- GCP
Take what follows with a grain of salt:
I know that many parts of Mozilla are dual-licensed under the MPL and GPL. If the parts being used in GNOME (specfically, Nautilus) are dual licensed, there's no problem.
Likewise, if Nautilus has an MPL exception in it, then the issue is again moot - it's once again legal.
I'm not sure if either of these cases are true, but I know GNOME is a lot more concious of license issues than KDE, so any problems have _probably_ been resolved.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
Who thinks the QPL complies with the open source definition? It may be an "approved license", but look at clause six of the OSD. The QPL doesn't allow you to use the software for developing commercial applications. This is discrimination against a "field of endeavour"; a violation of clause six.
As an earlier poster said, "if you don't like the QPL, don't use KDE". Well, I won't -- fortunately GNOME is pretty good. But those who do use KDE put us all at risk, because in the end applications might require KDE in order to work.
Well done Debian for keeping it out.
Huh?
Do you think before you type?
I mean just because something was in a Slashback doesn't make it more true...
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
I don't like this policy either, but I can see the point. Someone who wants to put proprietary modifications into a GPL'd application could simply "refactor" the application into a free part and a proprietary library.
I never claimed I had names. I just pointed out a problem.
it's green.
This topic for this thread is a bit misleading. KDE has not in any way tried to silence Mr Carter. This email was from Waldo Bastian who, while a member of the KDE Core Team, was acting on his own in sending the letter. When or if the KDE Core Team ever issues any official opinions on this issue, you can be assured that they will not be in private email.
There seems to be this mith that if I link my code with GPL'd and distribute it that my code becomes GPL'd.
.
I own my code until I assign it to sombody. Regardless of what I do with a linker. It's "just" violating the rights of the author who produced the GPL'd work if I distribute it.
.
The GPL doesn't take ownership of anyones code. It is not a legal entity (like a person or corp.), and uninforced has no rights of it's own. It's just a bloody liscence that you can use on YOUR code.
.
I'm GPL'ing this post and I own yours cause it's nested after it. You been owned by acidrain with my 1337 posting skillz. (Please understand that this is satire.)
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
This would seem to imply that the QPL is invalid anyway. One of the stipulations of using Qt for free is that your software must either be totally public domain, or GPLed.
No, no and no. GPL and free software are NOT just simply about 'code sharing'. They're about ensuring freedom.
In this case, it's quite unfortunate that the QPL and GPL are incompatible, but keep in mind that this is because the QPL places additional restrictions on what a user is allowed to do. The GPL does not allow one to compromise the users freedom.
-- GCP
Communicator is not violating the GPL by linking against non-GPL libraries. And that's the difference. Including Communicator doen't undermin the GPL.
When you assign blame you are making a normative claim about which is more important (said claim is explicit above). And while you have the right to your opinion, large sections of the free software community disagree. Yes, the GPL promotes a social agenda. But that agenda has technical content and technical implications. It is not simply "wrong", and it does not simply "have no place" in technical discussions.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I'm not really sure how the major commercial distributions are answering this. It's not something that makes a big noisebecause neither the KDE authors nor the QT people want to make a fuss about it, but it DOES ultimately weaken the GPL.
--
Simply, Debian was the worst distro I ever made the mistake of installing. Ranked right up there with TurboLinux6. Apparently, the debian team has two criteria for software going into their distribution: the code has to be under the GPL (unless it's netscape. god forbid people find out there is no gpl browser...), and has to be at least a year or so out of date. Great volunteer (no one would actually PAY them for that crap) work, keep it up. By the way, who is bitching? If you use debian, then you should have absolutely no problem with getting the packages of the web. Besides, don't most debian users leave it at TWM and forget about it? Last, but not Least, GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES!!! ALL OF YOU!!! IT'S JUST SOFTWARE!!!
Shift happens. Fire it up.
That's exactly what I tried to tell you a couple days ago, but he did it more elegantly and with more words. And no one even moderated me up...
I really like KDE, but as I said, it's plain illegal. I think I'm gonna have to switch to GNOME eventually. Now if I can figure out how to reconfigure GNOME to use KDE/Windows keymappings so I don't go insane...
My argument was with the original post: the implication was that, because KFloppy linked with Qt, that KFloppy was now QPL (which is not legal.)
Have you bothered to read the licensing agreement for Qt? Not just the QPL, but the legal documents for the QT Free Foundation? The stipulations are that your software, to be free, must meet one of the following:
1.) be totally free in source and binary form
2.) be released under the GNU Public License
3.) be released under the GNU Lesser Public License
In other words, Troll Tech has already granted permission for this type of usage. Go back and read that again. Okay, here it is again: Troll Tech has already written the clause for you. It's done. Now get back to work.
There's a conditional you miss -- the line "if the authors of the program clearly intended it to be linked against Qt".
So if KDE includes any GPLed code that the original author didn't clearly intend to be linked against Qt, then that's illegal.
For example, asssume there's a small utility that was written by Programmer Foo in 1992 for plain-vanilla X under the GPL, and that Programmer Bar patched the program in 1992. If Progammer Baz then added a KDE front-end to that program in 1999, it cannot legally be distributed until both Foo and Bar give permission.
So until KDE does a code audit and confirms everything they're shipping was intended to be linked against Qt by the author, it is quite possible that there is illegally-included code in KDE, and that Debian cannot legally distribute it.
Steven E. Ehrbar
--
All anyone is ever concerned about is making this or that license compatible with the GPL. I use Linux and other GPL'd pieces of software on many of my machines, and respect the efforts of GNU, the FSF, and those who produced GPL'd software, but it's the GPL which needs to be changed to be come compatible with other licenses.
It's just that just I've seen software which combines software developed under the Apache, BSD, and MPL licenses, and it all just works. But when you introduce the GPL, you've got a problem. Most open source licenses can all cooperate, but the GPL always introduces a problem with licensing.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
What is the problem is that KDE has committed Copyright infringement. And they know and admit it, but not publicly. Legally what they're doing is the same as software piracy. Morally? That's for each of us to decide on our own.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The plaintiff would be someone like me who wrote a GPLed application which someone was going to make a Qt port of until I persuaded him his efforts would be better spent making a GTK port. If the hypothetical Qt port was included in Redhat, I could sue Redhat for not providing freely modifiable sources to the distributed derivative (a binary linked to Qt) of my work. I'd only ask $1 + attorney fees, but US law allows for larger amounts even if there were no actual damages, provided I've registered my copyright with the government.
The above is not a purely hypothetical discussion. Corel linked Debian's libapt against Qt without permission and only avoided a lawsuit because the libapt author was really nice. Various KDE (non-core) components are derivatives of other works not authored by the KDE team, and they know they don't have permission for it all.
I agree that the world would be a better place without so many lawsuits and dealing with licenses, but until copyright dies (which I'm confident it will within my lifetime), this is how the world is.
You act as if "KDE" is one person or a corpation that owns the copyright on the whole project. But it's not, it's more of a bundle of software. The only software in KDE that is all LGPL (with IS compatible with QPL) is kdelibs, which is also copyright the KDE project. Everything else is owned and therefore licensed by the indivual coders, in which there is hunderds of people.
While the KDE project does have CVS logs, and the alike, contacting hunderds of people isn't easy. Many people's email address have changed since then, and who knows where some of the early KDE hackers (back in '96, '97 and '98) are today. Heck I know several people I knew back then who don't have current contact info.
Really, the problem is with RedHat, SUSE, and Corel (and other distros) knowingly illegally distributing KDE binaries. And since KDE 2.0 (using Qt 2.x with QPL) isn't quite finished yet, there isn't currently even any room to argue over subtleties of the licenses.
The common corporate stance of "Yes, we know we're breaking the GNU GPL, but maybe we'll fix it in a few years" really surprises me (see nVidia et al). If they were including unlicensed copies of W2K (for use with VMWare) in their distros, they'd issue a recall on them the minute Microsoft called them up. When it's the license of the community that they break, they don't care because there's no immanent danger of a lawsuit.
Of course, most of the people whose code is linked against Qt without permission don't care anyway, but would at least like to have been asked.
The GPL was specifically designed to discourage licenses like the Qt one which limit the ability of users to modify key components.
The Qt licence was specifically designed to encourage non-commercial use of Qt so that Troll could charge for people using it commercially and for ports to Windows. But in doing so they have to put restrictions on end-users to keep them from just forking the code and creating a free port for Windows. Hence the Qt license is specifically designed to impose the kind of restrictions on software that Stallman et al stand against.
The problem is that the KDE people tried to mix the two. Thereby engaging in exactly what the GPL was meant to prevent. This is not to say that the GPL is the source of the problem. The problem is using it without trying to understand what it means and making sure you fit within its restrictions.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
GTK suffers from many problems main being that C is not object oriented software and emulating OO results in rather ugly mess.
A decent programmer could code real OO code is assembler, if so inclined (and I know of at least one book that discusses how to do just that). Some languages (such as C++, Java, and Smalltalk) make it easier to code with an OO design philosophy, but OO code in C is not emulated. OO is mostly language independant, being more of a design philosophy than language implementation.
> 1) KDE uses the artistic license instead
...
...
...
KDE has taken lots of GPLed software and have basically just created KDE-ified versions. The KDE team cannot just switch the licenses since they don't own everything.
> 2) KDE adds a clause to their license
Same problem as 1. You can't change someone elses license.
> 3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead
They don't need to go to such extremes. There are other changes that could be made that would make it legal for GPLed software to link to QT.
> 4) RMS rewrites the GPL
Not enough, since all the original GPLed software would need to have the original license updated (see problem 1).
But I have another solution. KDE can get behind Harmony and drop QT altogether.
I won't say much about the flamewars which are still being fanned that accuse Debian (as if it were a unified entity) of "hating" KDE except to say that such talk is both nonsense and nonproductive.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
To clearify some things: Linking to Qt is no violation of the GPL! Qt is a Library, that means it is intentionally used by the program. As I know common practice the library does not "modify" the program but vice versa. Otherwise it wouldn't be allowed to link any GPL program to the LGPL'ed glibc or any other libc running on any sytem where GNU software is used. In any law I know about (at least German ones) there exists a concept called "intention". If a programmer writes a program that only runs while certain libraries are present it can legally be assumed that it is his intention to link the program against the library. You don't need written permission, the facts speak for themselves. AFAIK KDE only runs when Qt is there and linked against KDE - so you may assume that it is totally ok. It has never been practice of the FSF or any other big project to see license conflicts just because you decide to use certain libs - if they do so they have to express it and to provide alternative libs.
Even RMS agrees on this:
--------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: proposal of a paragraph of GPL v.3
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:43:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman
Debian seems to state that it might be a violation of plain, unmodifi=
ed
GPL to link against Qt.
That is true. However, if the authors of the program clearly intended
it to be linked against Qt, I would say they have given some kind of
implicit permission for people to do that.
--- snip ---
comment has been created based on posts from Konrad Rosenbaum on the kde-mailinglist
Did you know that some in the KDE project have been working on an interface for the blind? I hope you are man enough to give this interface a spin and give _feedback_ to this project.
This would _benefit_ members of the Open Source community as oppose to _harming_ people as you seem intent on doing.
Aren't we all on the same team? It's all Open Source. Would it be such a radical idea to play nice for a change?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
They say they want to create an open desktop that can be a Unix standard. But they want the standard part more than the open part. Until KDE can shape up, they're just lying, cheating hypocrites. The KDE team members who think like this and the Troll people who keep avoiding making QT free aren't members of the community. They are working against it, not helping it. Debian is right. They are wrong.
Oh, and this isn't an attack on KDE or Troll or QT in general. Not everybody involved in those projects is doing these things. But the ones who are are causing a major problem and they need to be stopped.
it's green.
This should probably be 5, Informative IMO because it's dead on. As I've said about as many times as I spent working on this (which means I no longer have any idea other than "a lot"), it's NOT a matter of KDE being non-free or Qt being non-free. KDE is GPL'd and Qt's QPL satisfies our Free Software Guidelines (which are the origin of the Open Source Definition), so Qt v2 IS free software.
The whole crux of the problem lies in KDE's use of code under the GPL which they did not write and have not right to change the license of. If you write some code and put it under a given license, I don't have the right to change your code's license to suit my needs. KDE has done precisely this in spirit. In legality, they are simply committing Copyright infringement. So is Red Hat and any other distribution distributing KDE. What's interesting is the number of messages from Red Hat employees my editorial has garnered trying to explain how market pressures forced them to include KDE even though they knew the final licenses weren't compatible. They agreed to do this back when Troll Tech was actively talking with me and it looked like the license would be GPL compatible when finished.
Market dynamics are apparently more important than legal and moral reprocussions of Copyright infringement. KDE better hope they don't touch my code.
1) KDE uses the artistic license instead
2) KDE adds a clause to their license that explicitly allows linking against QT as well as GPL(/LGPLd) libraries.
3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead, which has the potential to kill their business model.
4) RMS rewrites the GPL to allow linking against QPL licensed libraries as well as GPL(LGPL) licensed libraries (which has the added effect of hell freezing over and pigs flying).
Faced with these risks, should I willfully violate Copyright licenses? Not likely! Debian agrees. You want Debian to break the law?
As we all know, the great thing about open source is that it empowers the user - if you do not like an aspect of the software, then you are perfecty free to fork the code and take things in your own direction. And this is what Corel have done with their Debian-based distribution. The Corel distro provides all the benefits of Debian (e.g. Debian package management, superior stability), but has KDE included too.
Yes, I'll admit that Corel is more than just Debian with KDE added - many of Corel's tactics remind me of M$'s "embrace and extend" philosophy. But the principle is the same - if you don't like things how they are then you are perfectly free to fork the code.
Surely it is fine to maintain the status quo, and allow Debian to remain without KDE (allowing it to maintain its moral philosophy) and to have other forked versions of Debian which include the non-free software that dome users require.
What the hell are you smoking, and more importantly, where can I get some?
"OK, so Cygwin (mostly GPLed software ported to Win32) is illegal."
Incorrect. Cygwin would be built on top of MFC, which are certainly system libraries and are not distributed with Cygwin but with Windows itself. This is the "system library" exception to the GPL, and it is what allows GPL'd libraries to be ported to proprietary OSs.
Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is pretty questionable, and in any case it would be distributed on the same CD as KDE so the system library exception wouldn't likely apply anyway.
So please, respect other people copyright. They could have choose the GPL, the BSD, the Artistic licence or even the EULA of Microsoft. However, take care that the licence terms you used don't conflict with those of the libraries (licensed by other people with specific reasons in mind) you used. That's the error of the KDE team: thinking that they can do whatever they want with GPL code as long as the code is GPLed itself. That's not true and the restrictions aren't there for nothing.
Fabien Niñoles - Debian Maintainer
what if we could replace those parts of Qt which are currently under propriety standards with our community brewed free GPL'd libs ??? like FreeBSD did ?? is it worth comparing to how much work there is still left on GNOME and other fully GPL GUI's.. basically i'll stick to what ESR said.. dont' start out fresh , work with something that has been developed before.. that way we can improve these applications without "reinventing the wheel"
There still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here.
a) Debian provides a lot of non-free software (e.g. Netscape). KDE is not excluded because it's non-free. It's excluded because, as far as we can tell, the combination of licenses results in a contradiction that forbids us (or anyone) from distributing KDE.
b) We don't hate KDE. Many people in Debian have tried very hard to get this situation resolved, because we want to distribute KDE. I, personally, would be ecstatic if the situation were solved.
c) This is not about politics or philosophy. We are not willing to break the law, which seems to be what distributing KDE entails at this point. Unlike commercial distributors, we are an all-volunteer group, and can't afford to risk the chance of a lawsuit.
The recent $3000 offer to KDE to fix their license problems went unclaimed. See this article on www.teamlinux.de for more on this.
Actually, if you follow the link, you will see that the project I was referring to is called XMPS. :-) But thanks for the show of support.
"and it is what allows GPL'd libraries to be
^^^^^^^^^
ported to proprietary OSs."
I mean "programs," not "libraries." Should've previewed before posting.
Section 3 of the QPL reads:
Modifications must be seperate, ie patches or CVS or something, from the source code itself.. That's a restriction the GPL doesn't have, to be sure. Now let's look at the GPL itself, shall we?
All we have to do is satisfy sections 1 and 2 and make source available under the provisions in section 3. But let's have a look at section 2(b):Here's the classic dilemma. Binaries are okay as long as the whole thing is under the GPL's terms. The GPL does provide an exceoption for system libraries, but that exception doesn't apply if the system libraries are being distributed at the same time as kghostscript, so it does not apply to Qt.
You could argue that Qt is not part of the binary because it is dynamically linked. But Qt's headers and macros are linked in at compile time. And even then, a court would have to view dynamic linking the same as static linking if it were being used as a mechanism to thwart the license of the GPL'd application. Another point from the GPL:
Any other agreement includes the terms of the QPL. Because we cannot satisfy both the QPL and GPL, we cannot distribute the program at all. And not only can we not, but KDE can not as well. Neither can Red Hat or SuSE or Mandrake for that matter. To do otherwise is a violation of Copyright law, whether or not you're likely to face a lawsuit (or even criminal charges under the DMCA!)
I did my homework, believe me.
The GPL is written to make such things impossible.
There's no contradiction in that. You can license a program under the GPL and allow the use of Qt in it. It's just that you need to explicitly state that it is allowed.
Yay, and we get MicroSoft Kerberos which is really appropriated free kerberos code with added incompatibility? Sounds grrrreat. Or not.
RMS was, to put it your way, so fucking tired of people taking free code and making it proprietary. Which is what the GPL prevents.
"It seems to me that Debian advocates believe that the reason for KDE's non-inclusion is a problem with the QPL"
Not at all -- the QPL is certainly a free license. The problem is is trying to mix it with the GPL when the two licenses are incompatible.
And it has nothing to do with morality: Netscape is certainly non-free, but you'll find it on Debian's archive site, along with lots of other non-free software. Because, unlike KDE, it's not actually illegal to distribute Netscape or those others.
There are a lot of people claiming that:
- The KDE folks should change to a different license
- Troll Tech (the Qt folks) should change their license
- The FSF should change the GPL to be "friendlier" to closed-source developers
Okay, people. Anyone who develops software is free to license it as they see fit. If you don't like the license they do, don't use the software.
Don't like the GPL? Don't use GPL software.
Don't like the QPL? Don't use QPL software.
Don't like Microsoft's EULAs? Don't use Microsoft's software.
It's that simple.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You just misstated the GPL, neglecting the "base system component" exception.
There's people out there that will tell you that it's not legal to distribute Motif-based GPL programs that run on Solaris, or Java-based GPL programs, or even MFC-based GPL programs. Don't believe them, read the licence.
You are in fact correct. I left that out primarily for the sake of clarity. While it is in fact true, it has little relevance to this issue.
I prolly should have included it anyway, though, so I appreciate your pointing it out.
Topher
That Redhat and SuSE decided to ignore the law and distribute KDE anyway do not mean that it is not their problem. They just ignored the problem.
You are looking at this from the wrong angle. It is not about Troll Tech giving permission for their library to be used in someone elses program. They have already done that with the QPL. It is about the fact that pure GPL does not allow linking with Qt as the QPL stands.
As well as the author giving a packager permission to distribute the program under the GPL, the author must give permission to link with Qt. This permission comes in the form of a one line exception to the GPL. Complications arise when a programmer wants to use other people's GPL'd code in a Qt app. Unless they get permission (in the form of the one line exception) from the third party, they have no right to use that code. This is one area where a number of KDE developers pissed a lot of people off.
On the subject of system libraries, I wouldn't put Qt in the same class as libc, and I don't think it is the intention of the GPL to do so.
Yes. But then why so many commercial products come as a completely static link ?
They simply cannot afford to point their customers to 10 different sites and having them chasing bunch of right version of libraries that this particular app needs.
Why not?
Even if Linux takes off (it's already taking off - so it's something that IS happening) and if Red Hat is the one that leads the way, then why would Debian have to go away?
People would/will still use Debian for the same reasons they use it now. Not only is it a better learning experience for a newbie, but it also has a lot of other positive qualities that many of us appreciate. I, for one, would like to see non-free removed. You can find non-free packages elsewhere rather easily.
Debian is special and has a meaning. Not everyone wants to use a commercial distribution like Red Hat. Choice is good.
Joseph has been at the forefront of trying to get this issue resolved. Most of the time he has been diplomatic, fair and rational about it (on *rare* instances he will lose his temper). But he has a troubling trait of admitting he's wrong on some points.
"em>that much of KDE is not legally distributable until they contact some people that are damned scarce these days and make the necessary arrangements."
The real problem is not that orginal KDE code uses Qt, but that a few bits of the code were borrowed from elsewhere and made to link to Qt. I believe that this specific issue can be resolved, but the argument keeps revolving around KDE as a whole. KDE has many packages, but only a few of them have this problem. Specifically, the heart of KDE, the libs, are under the LGPL, and thus there is no problem with kde-libs from *any* interpretations of the licenses involved. The problem lies with kfloppy, kghostview, and maybe some more packages (those two are the only ones I am aware of).
"In short, the GPL says that the whole program must be under its terms before you are allowed to distribute it. It makes a specific exception for things like proprietary libcs and the like, but the exception to that is that you can't distribute them both together, so we'd be stuck even if we considered Qt a system library."
Section 2 of the GPL, which talks about licensing the Program under the GPL, has very different language than what Joseph paraphrased it as. "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole", "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program", "distribute them as separate works". Qt is a separate work from KDE. Qt is not distributed as part of KDE "as a whole". Is is merely distributed in aggregate with KDE.
When Joseph talks about exceptions for "proprietary" libraries, the GPL is saying something very different from what he implies. The exception allows Qt to be excluded from the distribution of KDE, because Qt is normally distributed with the operating system (at least it does on my Slackware). But even this is beside the point! Only the source to modules that KDE contains need be distributed under the Program as a whole. Even if the programmatic and copyrightable sense of the word "module" were confused, it is clear that even if Qt could be considered a "module of" KDE, is it not a "module contained" in KDE. kde-libs may be an exception, but again, that part of KDE is under the LGPL.
When Joseph says "we'd be stuck even if we considered Qt a system library", I wonder why debian is not similarly stuck with other GPL-incompatible system libraries such as Motif. I get the strong (but hopefully wrong) impression that there is a double standard at work here. Why does the exception count for Motif but not for Qt? In a lot of cases I have seen, the GPLd Motif applications disobey even the exception, since the Motif is statically linked, and thus is distributed inside the Program.
"We could distribute the source, but what would be the point in that?"
Because some people don't have as fast of connections as Joseph does. I have a DSL connection, and downloading the recent KDE-1.91 sources took fifteen minutes (and I had to wait several hours to get through). A lot of people have only 56K modems or less. Downloading KDE could take hours for some of them. Including the source to KDE may not be politically necessary for Debian, but it sure as hell is convenient for the user!
"We've been quite open to helping KDE fix the problems with their licenses."
A lot of KDE developers respect you for that Joseph. The problem is that Debian also contains a small for very vocal minority of members who are demanding instead of helping. Like any hacker in any community, the KDE hacker stubbornly resists demands. The more the push, they more the push back.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm just wondering why the KDE people don't just change the license on KDE. That would solve numerous problems. The license could still be very GPL-like, but with an exception for the QPL. Sure that would mean the Debian guys couldn't use it, but anybody that obsessed with the philosphy behind a piece of software is too far gone to help.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
A KDE executable, dynamically linked, and run by a user however, contains Qt modules, suitably relocated.
The GPL makes no restriction on use. Only distribution.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The advice given in the GPL is to include a statement that your software can be redistributed under the terms of the GPL "either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version."
Most people who publish GPL'd software have included this phrase, and therefore have implicitely given permission to RMS to update their licenses.
"Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is pretty questionable, and in any case it would be distributed on the same CD as KDE"
Wait! This is either a double standard or an artful dodge...
Stop mixing and matching clauses to fit your theory. Way before the "exception" clause, there is section 2, which specifically disassociated the GPL from software distributed aggregate to the Program. The exception clause is excepting from the exception stuff that is included "inside" the Program, and not stuff that is distributed elsewhere on the CD.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
quite frankly, Debian has Netscape Communicator as part of the main distro, and one could use the same arguments used against KDE against Netscape. Compiling software for Linux is damn near impossible without somewhere using some includes from GPL software. One could argue Communicator is an illegal derivation of GPLed software.
Sorry, TrollTech isn't that large. They have about maybe half a dozen KDE guys, leaving several hundred employed elsewhere.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yeah, it's real silly not to give them the option to get things easily done, when giving them that option happens to be illegal.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
As far as I know GNOME uses or will use mozilla code in their efforts. It surprises me that some are bashing KDE for using the QPL'd toolkit while everyone seems to be cool with GNOME ppl using MPLd code. Neither is a fully GPLed solution so what's the frigging noise about? Just curious.
> Distributing GPL applications (including KDE) that are dynamically linked to QT is perfectly OK in distributions that include QT as a part of the base OS. RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, TurboLinux, and virtually all distros except Debian include it. Debian does not, as QT is non-free software, and thus does not fit within their philosophy.
Ah. I hope you have it right, because this makes a lot of sense out of all the (mostly) incomprehensible statements people have been posting.
And assuming for the moment that you do have it right, wouldn't the simple fix be for Debian to just include Qt and KDE on the "non-free" disk? Easy enough to include a disclaimer saying that KDE is in fact free, but that it requires Qt, which has to go on the "non-free" disk for other reasons.
I guess then we would get into issues of what defines a "system" library. If a library is optional on, say, Digital's Unix, does that mean it's not a "system" library?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
>>"Whether Qt is a "system library" or not is
>> pretty questionable, and in any case it would
>> be distributed on the same CD as KDE"
"Wait! This is either a double standard or an
artful dodge...
"Stop mixing and matching clauses to fit your theory. Way before the "exception" clause, there is section 2, which specifically disassociated the GPL from software distributed aggregate to the Program."
The clause you are referring to just means that just because some other software is distributed on the same CD, tape, hard drive, etc. as some GPL'd software doesn't make that other software GPL'd.
What I was referring to was the so-called "system library" exception, which only counts if the "system library" is not distributed with the GPL'd software itself. So if both Qt and KDE are on the same CD, then the system library exception doesn't kick in.
Obviously KDE cannot be distributed under a license that contradicts QPL. But the Qt restrictions are such that you cannot create a derived work from it that is compatible with the GPL.
Period.
If you try all you will get is a piece of software where anyone who wrote GPLed pieces can stop distribution. Most distributers are willing to take their chances, believing that if that happened to them then they could get the licenses sorted out retroactively.
But Debian does not have that freedom.
Hence this discussion.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
What I was referring to was the so-called "system library" exception, which only counts if the "system library" is not distributed with the GPL'd software itself. So if both Qt and KDE are on the same CD, then the system library exception doesn't kick in.
I think that this is going to come down as a matter of opinion. There's many ways to interpret the GPL, and I can certainly see how you do. But do you at least understand my interpretation? Qt is distributed on the same CD as KDE, and if it is indeed a part of the Program (KDE) that needs to be GPLd, then it needs to be distributed according to sections 1 and 2. But Qt is not "derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in" itself", so it is excluded from the requirements of the GPL.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The debate over free vs. mostly-free is so irrelevant and suicidal that I could just laugh. It's certainly important to be principled, and all that, but the fact is that at the moment, Linux needs to focus on *usability*, not on principle. GNOME is nowhere near as polished/usable for newcomers as KDE, at the moment. In six months, it may be, but meanwhile, the only Linux desktop that is familiar to Windoze/Mac users is KDE. By not including KDE, Debian is dooming themselves to the "hardcore geek" nice of Linux distros. In order to "spread the good word", so to speak, it's necessary, for now at least, to use the mostly-free KDE, and spread the joy of Linux to people who want to use it.
If memory serves, if Troll Tech gets bought, the QPL ceases to cover the free Qt version and BSD licensing takes over for it. If this is still the case, perhaps we could sweet-talk one of the major vendors for Linux stuff (say Red Hat, VA Linux, SGI, or IBM, for example...) to buy Troll Tech and turn them into an extended support organization for Qt, etc.
This is not meant to cast aspersions on the Troll Tech people- they've come up with a winning toolset and they're not too unreasonable about the licensing for commercial, etc usages outside of the QPL. I just think it'd be one of the quickest ways out of what's beginning to pan out to be an otherwise unsolvable mess.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If you go check out Gnotices, you will see an interesting, seemingly unrelated article: The XMPS project has just released a version which supports DivX decompression... by using a MS-Windows DLL. XMPS is a GPLed Gtk+-based MPEG player. It is a GPLed app which uses a proprietary library. The licence makes no explicit exceptions. Sound familiar? Now read the Gnotices. See anyone complaining? I don't. Everyone looks thrilled. Somehow, I'm not surprised. Slashdot posters would react the same if the news got here. This is a Gtk+ app, after all.
I personally feel there is nothing wrong with what the XMPS project is doing. I actually applaud that clever trick and what it allows for users of free systems. I know my free software history: Emacs and GCC were born on non-free systems. They did what they could with what they had. So does XMPS. So does KDE. Hopefully, the situation will someday improve. But in the meantime, the people writing the GPLed code are the good guys and gals... Remember? (I guess not.)
But of course, anyone writing GPLed code and linking it against Qt is a GPL-badmouthing, uptight, arrogant, crack-smoking, gay devil-worshipper. Hundreds of posts and e-mails will tell you that. And I'm not even kidding about the "gay" part, which you know if you have read the comments on Freshmeat. When I see how such troll posts about KDE consistently get moderated up to +5 Intersting, I start looking for the button which allows me to moderate *all* of Slashdot down.
I would trolling if I did not have a point.
PS: I bought a Gnome T-shirt from Copyleft just so Gnome and the FSF would get a donation. Think about that before you write me off as an anti-GPL bigot.
The point is that something needs to change. Right now, KDE is shipping software under incompatible licenses.
I wasn't directing my message to those who think their may be a legitimate legal conflict between KDE and other software packaged together. That, the original issue, seems to be getting lost in the noise of general license flamewars. Seeing that the original issue was pretty well addressed, I was attempting to douse some of the other fires.
FWIW, IANAL, but I don't see any legal conflict with KDE being GPL while Qt is QPL, so long as any distributed KDE binaries are dynamically linked. Section 3 (which covers distribution) says:
"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."
A KDE executable, dynamically linked, contains no Qt modules.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Oh, and it's xmms, BTW (X multimedia system). There is no such thing as xmps.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
At least nobody can deny that's really open.
What is it about the QPL that makes KDE illegal to distribute? Something about not mixing it with code from the GPL? That's how KDE is set up, right? I know this topic came by the other day, but I can't remember the specifics...
-jpowers
-jpowers
I really wish this story was under the DEBIAN icon instead of the KDE icon.
Why oh why should this stuff be under the KDE icon when it is most obviously 100% DEBIAN crap?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
OK.I'm a Debian user but I do like KDE.Now what strike me here in this too long discussed topic is:Well if KDE is ILEGALLY distributing their software or as a lot of people think they are ilegally using other people's work then waht is FSF doing? IMHO they should sue the KDE project and prove that they really care about the GPL and they are ready to enforce it. Otherwise GPL doesn't have any value period.If FSF doesn't think that KDE is doing an illegal thing than they should issue a statement and let the Debian project know that is OK to distribute KDE. Honestly guys,if anybody thinks thak KDE is doing something ilegall than let's set-up a fund raising under the umbrela of FSF,sue KDE for what they've done wrong,let the court decide and close the issue once and for all.I would contribute with whatever I can spare to solve the issue. Why FSF should set this up I think is obvious.
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
What is up with the KDE Crew? Don't they see the potiental dangers in there laxed licensing policy? There indifference to fix the problem doesn't reflect well on their project or their direction. Do they really not care?
For me, this is above all other reasons why I'm lery of KDE. Does Troll Tech really believe developers will blindly follow just because they write code?
and while we at it, why don't YOU work for free ?
You are right. A little bit of sanity is always welcomed.
And I quote (GPL, version 2, section 3):
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.
This is the so-called "system library" exception. Of course, what is a system library? It's a library that comes with the standard distribution (according to the GPL)...
Distributing GPL applications (including KDE) that are dynamically linked to QT is perfectly OK in distributions that include QT as a part of the base OS. RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, TurboLinux, and virtually all distros except Debian include it. Debian does not, as QT is non-free software, and thus does not fit within their philosophy.
Fine for Debian. They hold to their ideals, and that's what they view important. It's hypocritical of them to accuse TT of not bending to their will to change the QT license, though. That's the license, and if it doesn't change, well, there are consequences for Debian users. There's no free lunch, folks.
KDE on the otherhand, needs to be voicing the restrictions that using the QT requires of end-users: that is, KDE should be distributing apps that are dynamically-linked with QT, and also should not be including QT as part of the default install. This is something that the end-user needs to be aware of when choosing to use/not-use KDE.
This leads back to the system-library exemption clause in the GPL: this is totally bogus, since a system library is so ill-defined that I could make anything a system library. Honestly, this clause is so vague that I can ignore the GPL for huge chunks of my code if I just make them into a library (and call it a "system library"), since what is "normally distributed"? And exactly what is a "major component"?
This all leads to my biggest bitch about Licenses in the OpenSource movement in general: somehow, the concept that a standalone library is part of a finished app needs to change. The whole point of dynamic libraries is that the same codebase is shared between multiple apps (well, not the whole point, but one of the major benies...).
We should move towards the following standard:
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
acually, /they/ care
Source for what? kde or troll. get a life you wanker
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard