Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any > way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source > code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is > one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the GPL.
Correct, as long as you don't distribute the modifications. > the problem arises when you compile and link with a non-free library (e.g. > Qt or Xforms). doing that creates a combined work (the binary) which is a > derivative of both GPL-ed code and non-free code. if you don't wish to > distribute this derived work then there is still no problem. Again, correct, as that violates section 3 of the GPL. Note, however, this is not the only form of non-freeness which the GPL forbids you from distributing. > (as a side note, this is complicated in the case of KDE because KDE has > re-used some existing GPL code and linked it to Qt. While they have every > right under the GPL to modify the source to do that, the GPL prohibits > them from legally distributing binaries until they receive permission from > the original author(s)) The GPL also forbids them from distributing the modified sources. Oddly enough, this may go away if some OS makes Qt a part of its standard components. [Note that such a distributor could not then legally distribute KDE, nor any other purely GPLed code which uses Qt, with the its OS.] At the moment, it's up in the air whether all the variant linux distributions qualify as distinct OSes. [This is not defined in the GPL, and would take a court case to resolve -- note that a court would not attempt to come up with some generally useful definition of an operating system but would come up with something specific to the context of the court case.] -- Raul