> 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.
Indeed Qt is not part of the problem > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a > whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each > and every part regardless of who wrote it. > > Qt is not distributed as part of KDE. It is distributed as part of > various distributions that also include the KDE, but only by "mere > aggregation [...] on a volume of a storage or distribution medium" > which the GPL okays elsewhere in the text. It is not a mere aggregation. If I remove Qt KDE is unusable. Furthermore your discussion with Preston Brown re legal issues clearly shows you believe that the question of inline code is a matter of IPR and potential lawsuits therefore you clearly believe the inline C++ code linked by KDE from Qt code is a component KDE requires Qt currently. So KDE is non free. Similarly Linus does not distribute KDE with the kernel so its not in the base distribution. On Solaris KDE is shipped even though no Sun product includes Qt. So the case there is even more blatant
