[H-GEN] GPL question (KDE?)

[David Starkoff]

On 10/01/2004, at 12:59 PM, 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

I think that's entirely consistent with what had been said earlier in 
the thread, in particular: "the GPL requires that all programs that 
link against GPLd code must also be GPL", but then distinguishing the 
LGPL.

As Anthony noted, the last reference to the GPL in that quote should, 
instead, be "GPL-compatible".  If kdelibs is LGPL, then there's 
probably little problem with linking proprietary code (or 
GPL-incompatibly licensed code) to it--that's the stated purpose of the 
LGPL after all.

But Qt is a different matter.  The Free Software Foundation regards the 
QPL as GPL-incompatible: 
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>.  But since Qt has 
been dual-licensed under the GPL, GPL'd code is fine, because you elect 
to take the Qt code under the GPL.  If that's not good enough for you, 
negotiate with Trolltech (see also Anthony's email of 6 January 2004, 
2.32 p.m. to H-CHAT).

> 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?

It would depend on the licences of A, B, and C.  If one of them is a 
so-called "viral" licence (like the GNU GPL), then it starts getting 
interesting.  But the same issues apply--is there a reproduction? is 
that reproduction licensed? under what terms must the reproduction be 
licensed?

Depending on the particular derivation and the particular licenses, a 
user or developer (or an author) of A may not be required to have any 
regard to the licence of C.  But it all depends.

David.
(Just setting the scene for <http://linux.conf.au/abstracts.cgi#4>.)