RE: KDE vs. Gnome?

["Poletti, Don" <don poletti comverse-in com>]

> On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:12:31AM -0400, Poletti, Don wrote:
>  
> > The GTK widget set that gnome is based on is NOT GPLed its
> > LGPL. That is the Library General public license.
> 
> s/Library/Lesser/

I'll have to check but I thought they change it from lesser to
library.

> 
> > This means
> > that I can write a commercial application for GNOME (using the
> > gnome/gtk libraries) and charge money for it.
> 
> The GPL does not place any monetary restrictions on the sale 
> of binaries
> built from derivative works.
> 
> Perhaps you meant "proprietary" (closed source) instead of 
> "commercial"?
Yes you are correct. However a lot of commecial companies will
be unwilling to release their projects open source. Once GPLed
I beleive anyone can grab it and start to distribute and charge for
it. So althought there are some commercial success selling GPL code
most companies won't go for it. I think MS might release office
for linux (especially if the DOJ forces them) but when they charge $400
or so a licence I don't see it going GPL. 

Question: If I buy a GPL piece of software is it licenced? Can I install
it on more than one machine?

> 
> > Now I have a few 
> > software programs that I want to release and they will be GPL
> > but I think for GNOME to be successful the OS has to be free
> > for commercial use.
> 
> The GPL and the LGPL are copyright licenses, not EULAs, and 
> as such only
> govern the act of copying.  They do not and cannot place 
> restrictions on
> use.
> 
> You say your apps will be GPL and yet you have not read it?  The very
> first section in the GPL states...
You got me. I am going on a lot of licenceing discussing like this I find
arguing the points easier decyphering legal jargon

> 
> 	"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
> 	are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
> 	The act of running the Program is not restricted, 

Could you translate this to english. for instance "running the program is 
not restricted." Does this mean the GPL does not restrict addition licence
restriction on the program. Or the opposite that you can't add additional
restrictions. Basically can I say one licence per machine is required.

> 
> > KDE on the other hand is released QPL.
> 
> No, the toolkit (Qt) used by KDE applications is QPL.  The 
> KDE libraries
> are mostly LGPL and the licenses for the applications vary.

You can't write a KDE app without the toolkit so you are 
bound by it. But otherwise you are correct.

> 
> > These means its free [...]
> 
> Beware, portions of KDE cannot be distributed legally.  The QPL is not
> compatible with the GPL, under which some KDE applications 
> are licensed.

Yep funny how the open source community can ignore things they 
don't like. The FSF should really sue the KDE people, before
I get a flamed for saying that let me explain. I have nothing against
KDE and don't really want to make their lives difficult which is
probably why nothing has been done so far but I think by not prosecuting
them or at least asking/threatening them the legal power of GPL is weaken
I pretty sure you lose some rights if you try selective enforcement. This
is certainly true with trademarks, that why if you order a pepsi and all
they
have is coke they are very clear about it. Also I just find it hypocritcal
to turn a blind eye towards it.




> 
> Suggested reading:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/
> http://www.opensource.org/
> http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/06/17/961300740.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
>