treat at kde.org
Sun Jul 3 19:26:05 UTC 2005
On Sunday 03 July 2005 1:29 pm, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Sunday 03 July 2005 20:10, Adam Treat wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 July 2005 10:37 am, Andras Mantia wrote:
> > > 1) it is not needed
> > > 2) it is against the Qt licensing. Qt is under GPL, while urlutil
> > > is under LGPL and we are not allowed to relicense it.
> > *sigh* it sucks that we still haven't licked such basic licensing
> > questions. Ask yourself, if Qt (because one of its available licenses
> > is GPL) does not allow a derivative LGPL ... then how can kdelibs be
> > LGPL? Answer: QPL.
> No, this is not about derivate work, it is about copying the source from
> Qt to an LGPL licensed code. Does QPL allow this?
IANAL, but I think you are confusing c++ inheritance with copyright definition
of 'derived works'. Just because they've copied the source from one into
another it still is considered a derived work. Copying source is, after all,
what copyright is all about.
More information about the KDevelop-devel