[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?" |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:02:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> In article <hbco0q$l0d$1@colin2.muc.de>, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> wrote:
>> Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages
>> wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly
>> dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is
>> sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law
>> under which the GPL must operate.
>>
>> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL.
>> Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions
>> is there any "danger" or "complexity".
>
> The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically
> linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was
> something normally distributed with the components of the operating
> system on which KDE ran.
>
> But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the
> license.
Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on
the non-free Qt as a crucial infrastructure, so the FSF strongly
recommended not using KDE. In a similar vein, the FSF strongly advised
against using Java as long as it was licensed non-free. And other
software.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in
the GPL. It has to do with non-free software.
The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release
it under a free license after all.
Where is your problem with that?
--
David Kastrup
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", (continued)
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Rjack, 2009/10/17
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/17
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/17
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/17
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/17
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Tim Smith, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?",
David Kastrup <=
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Hadron, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", David Kastrup, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Tim Smith, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", David Kastrup, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", David Kastrup, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Chris Ahlstrom, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", Tim Smith, 2009/10/18
- Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?", David Kastrup, 2009/10/18