qt code in kdelibs?

[Andreas Pour]

I know most people don't like licensing threads on this list (ergo, kde-licensing) so I will make it short:  your analysis is flawed and the kdelibs licensing policy is correct.  I'll follow up in private.

Best,

Andreas

----- Original Message ----
From: Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi at kde.org>
To: kde-core-devel at kde.org
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:13:24 PM
Subject: Re: qt code in kdelibs?

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:53:02AM -0700, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Aside from the noted problem with Apple
>
that shouldn't be an issue, as apple does not use kdecore anyway, no?
how could they use kdelibs without a qt license otherwise, anyway?

> if you put any GPL code in kdelibs then all of kdelibs must be
> licensed under the GPL (under a common reading of the GPL)
>
yes, the viral character.

if you use qt under gpl, kdelibs is already "infected" anyway, so it
would not matter.

> and a commercial Qt license would not help with that
>
why? under these conditions no gpl code would be included in the first
place.

for my idea to work out, two conditions must be met:
- anybody being allowed to distribute the code in question without
  actually granting a license to use it (other than gpl, that is). that
  should be covered by the qpl/gpl+exception, no?
- buying a qt license would have to imply the right to use (older) qt
  code "extracted" and distributed separately from the purchased package.

> (in fact the commercial Qt license would probably not even apply to
> the qringbuffer_p.h included in kdelibs).
>
now that's the catch.
ultimately, this needs to be cleared up with tt legal, i guess.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070521/0cec8000/attachment.htm>