Re: KDE vs. Gnome?

[TimO <hairballmt mcn net>]

TimO wrote:
> > > 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.
> >

> the desktop (KDE).  As far as KDE apps meeting GPL; this must be checked on
> a case by case basis.  QPL allows for redistribution in unmodified form
> with
> prior permission from TrollTech.  With this allowance, KDE programs can
> meet the conditions of the GPL.
> 

OOPS, I believe I may have spewed a misrepresentation here. :-(  GPL
section
3 states  "...offer to distribute corresponding source code." with the 
definition of source code to include "...plus any associated interface
definition files...".  This does indeed break QPL compatability with GPL
because QT can only be distributed by TrollTech or by an author with 
specifically stated permission.  GPL implies distribution by anybody.
Apologies for my ignorance.  /me covers butt with both hands.

-- Tim

> almost $.02 worth....  :-)
> 
> > >
> > > Suggested reading:
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/
> > > http://www.opensource.org/
> > > http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/06/17/961300740.html
> > >