Plugin Arch. for KDevelope 2.0

Sandy Meier smeier at
Thu Aug 2 12:30:52 UTC 2001

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, you wrote:

>It would be bad if nobody could write commericial Linux apps because the 
>kernel is GPL'd. But it seems accepted by everyone, other than Microsoft, 
>that you can mix GPL and non-GPL code in the same app, when you write an 
>application which makes kernel calls. I think the reason for this is that 
>kernel code doesn't have any relation to the code in typical applications 
>running in the user space.
Yes, I think the level of abstraction in the kernel is large. Nobody will  
suggest for example "kedit" is an extension of the Linux kernel.  And as far 
as I know, most of the applications don't make kernel calls, everything will 
be directed through the libc so you have yet an other layer.

>be at risk from someone hacking together an open source replacement, and 
>losing them all their market share overnight. Also I use a PowerPC machine, 
>and I bet they wouldn't run on that, or any unusual architecture.
So, it is in your own interest if we only allow opensource plugins :-)

To come to a conclusion on this issue. Until we change our license model (a 
GPL'ed KDevelop), it is allowed to distribute C/C++ plugins only under GPL or 
compatible licenses (LGPL,X11 and so on.). For Java we don't have a solution 
yet. Richard maybe? 
If no one objects this will be the "official" position for the next time. ok?

Sorry, if I force a solution but for me it is important to have an answer on 
this topic.


- -- 
The question is not, can they reason? nor,can they talk? 
but, can they suffer? (Jeremy Bentham)
- --
for verifying my signature or send encryted emails:
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request at with the following body:
unsubscribe »your-email-address«

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list