Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Permalink for comment 3903
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Even though the KDE libraries are a mix of BSD/LGPL/etc, they are effectively GPLd due to Qt being GPL. You still can not develop non-GPL applications using them due to Qt being GPL, unless you buy a commercial license for Qt. That includes using other open source licenses that are not compatible with the GPL. KDE itself is in a grey area on some libraries it uses due to the viral nature of the GPL. For example, KDE uses the openssl libssl library which is not GPL compatible in kded_kssld.so which kded_kssld.so also links with other libraries that are effectively GPL'd.