Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 10:30 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
KDE "Ars Technica sat down today to talk with KHTML developer and Trolltech employee, Lars Knoll. We talked about his involvement in the project that ultimately became the HTML rendering engine for Apple's Safari web browser, as well how Apple's involvement has shaped the future of web browsing for browsers on just about every platform imaginable."
Thread beginning with comment 247611
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Please clear a doubt
by Chuck Norris on Wed 13th Jun 2007 16:33 UTC
Chuck Norris
Member since:

I don't want to start any flamewar, I just would like to understand. Safari and OS X are proprietary systems, and how are they able to include GPL sofware legally without having to release all the Safari source code, or even all the OS X source code? I think they only release the rendering engine modifications (KHTML) and WebKit. So you can use GPL software in proprietary applications and release as GPL only the code that was changed? You don't have to open-source your whole application? Please let me know.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Please clear a doubt
by MightyPenguin on Wed 13th Jun 2007 17:23 in reply to "Please clear a doubt"
MightyPenguin Member since:

Yes it's somewhat confusing to non software developers.

Basically it's like this: (many people believe) you can have GPL code and proprietary mixed together as long as they are modularized into libraries with seemingly static boundaries. On windows this would be DLLs.

So you could perhaps have a GPL DLL for handling say, drawing PNGs. And a proprietary DLL for handling BMPs. Your image editing app (like photoshop) which uses both of these could be proprietary or GPL without (as many believe) breaking the law.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Please clear a doubt
by smitty on Wed 13th Jun 2007 18:33 in reply to "RE: Please clear a doubt"
smitty Member since:

Apparently it is somewhat confusing to everyone, because as far as i know that is incorrect. That was the whole reason to create the LGPL license wasn't it? Which is what KHTML uses, so Apple only had to release the changes they made to it and not the rest of their application.

or even all the OS X source code?

That's easy - you only have to release the code that is directly linked to the GPL code. Calling a system call in the kernel doesn't count since that is more like passing a message to another piece of software rather than integrating that software directly into your own. That's why you can run proprietary apps on Linux and GPL apps on Windows, because they are considered seperate works and not extensions of the other.

Edited 2007-06-13 18:36

Reply Parent Score: 2

by zlynx on Wed 13th Jun 2007 17:44 in reply to "Please clear a doubt"
zlynx Member since:

The license is not GPL. It is LGPL. That means that changes to the library itself must be open source. However, the program using the library may be proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

by anda_skoa on Wed 13th Jun 2007 17:58 in reply to "KHTML is LGPL"
anda_skoa Member since:

The license is not GPL. It is LGPL

Exactly. If it were licenced under GPL it wouldn't be in kdelibs.

See rule #3 of the KDE licence policy

Reply Parent Score: 3