Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > if you link a GPL-ed program and Qt, you are creating a work which is > derived from both. Since Qt's license is incompatible with the GPL > as far as distribution goes, you may not distribute that derived work > without additional permission being granted by the author (unless, of > course, you are the author).
However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on those services: A very different thing. > note that the GPL does not distinguish between static and dynamic > linking. It distinguishes between separate distribution and distribution "as part of" A. Not entirely the same thing, but not terribly different either. > RMS, the author of the GPL (whose opinion, therefore, is just > more authoritative on this subject than yours), has pointed this out on > numerous occasions. rms, you and I are all simple persons and speak with the same authority. Only a court speaks with special authority. > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what > is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their > license"? How does it hurt them to do that? Is that really not obvious to you? --Arnt