In article <[email protected]>, Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages > wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly > dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is > sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law > under which the GPL must operate. > > Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions > is there any "danger" or "complexity".
The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was something normally distributed with the components of the operating system on which KDE ran. But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the license. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
