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 3650
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Read the article
by rm6990 on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Read the article"
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

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

Most KDE libs are LGPL. This makes it possible to write proprietary apps. Of course you still have to pay Trolltech.

Something that most people might not realize is that the GPL is actually a file based license. Say I have some app composed of a bunch of GPL C files. There's nothing that prevents me from adding another file under say the BSD license and releasing the app. Now, the FSF will claim that the whole app is now GPL, but your code is still under the license you chose.


If this is the case, then why do you insist on trolling on all of the KDE articles, such as the last one from this same author, on how KDE is not the way to go and how Gnome should be the standard *nix desktop in order to defeat Windows in the marketplace? Or do you just have nothing better to do?

Yes, your code is BSD or w/e you choose, the entire combined app is GPL though. I don't see that as a problem however. Either pony up the license fees, GPL your app, or use GTK+. Many KDE users use Gnome/GTK apps (such as Gaim), just like many Gnome users, such as myself, use KDE/Qt apps such as K3b.

Reply Parent Score: 1