Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source 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?
Thread beginning with comment 3622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Read the article
by anda_skoa on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:58 UTC in reply to "Read the article"
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

For that matter, I thought most KDE libs were licensed under the LGPL already? Anyone care to confirm/deny?

http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Read the article
by archiesteel on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:09 in reply to "RE: Read the article"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Thanks for the link...so, in fact, KDE libraries are already licensed under the LGPL...I guess the perceived problem is with the Qt libraries? Am I missing something here?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Read the article
by anda_skoa on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Read the article"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Am I missing something here?

You are "missing" that the licence discussion is always initiated and followed by people that are not in anyway affected by it.

Developers are the ones affected by library licences and they are usually smart enough to understand technical and legal advantages of available options.

But of course if you need another article by the end of the week or a couple of more site hits, it gets convenient to have a topic that can never by "solved" because by only looks like a problem but isn't one.

Reply Parent Score: 1