On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the > KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE. > In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and > its terms, to apply to Qt.
if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work without additional permission being granted by the author (unless, of course, you are the author). note that the GPL does not distinguish between static and dynamic linking. RMS, the author of the GPL (whose opinion, therefore, is just more authoritative on this subject than yours), has pointed this out on numerous occasions. note also, that this license conflict is only with regard to distribution of the derived work. what you do on your own machine is your concern. the GPL does not restrict usage or modification in any way, it only restricts re-distribution in order to preserve the free status of GPLed software. All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their license"? How does it hurt them to do that? it's not difficult to do, and it would solve the problem for everyone. it would clarify their apparent intention, without harming them in any way. it would give debian (and others) the legal permission they seek to distribute the KDE software. craig -- craig sanders
