[H-GEN] GPL question (KDE?)

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:59:04PM +1000, Benjamin wrote:
> On a related note, I wonder if someone could explain this web page to me:
> http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=59
> If a kde library requires qt to run, and is developed using the GPL'd qt base, 
> why is it not required to be GPL? 

It doesn't have to be GPL, but it has to be at least as free as the GPL;
so BSD licenses and similar are fine too.

The trick in that URL is that it's not developed using the GPLed qt base,
but rather using the commercially licensed qt base. That this happens to
be the same code isn't relevant -- it's what you're allowed to do with it
(what license you have) that is.

> Now I understand how if A depends on both B and C that the licence of C would 
> usually not affect hte license of B, but if A depends on B and B depends on C 
> isn't that another matter? In that case you really don't have a B without the 
> C that it is dervied from... or am I completely crazy?

If A is a program that used both openssl (B) and libreadline (C), then
you have that sort of situation -- openssl is incompatible with the GPL,
which is what libreadline is under. Basically, if you do that, you're
not allowed to distribute binaries of your program. 

AIUI, IANAL, YMMV, etc.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/20040110/d7afe854/attachment.sig>