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

[Tim Smith]

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.

-- 
--Tim Smith