Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"

[David Kastrup]

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <hbco0q$l0d$1@colin2.muc.de>, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> 
> 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.

Huh?  Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free.  KDE relied on
the non-free Qt as a crucial infrastructure, so the FSF strongly
recommended not using KDE.  In a similar vein, the FSF strongly advised
against using Java as long as it was licensed non-free.  And other
software.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in
the GPL.  It has to do with non-free software.

The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release
it under a free license after all.

Where is your problem with that?

-- 
David Kastrup