[Freeciv-Dev] Re: KCiv?

[Gaute B Strokkenes <gs234@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Thue wrote:
>> The argument that was brought up against a QT client the last time
>> this came up was that it would too much trouble to maintain (more
>> copies of client code always adds some initia), and that the KDe
>> users could just use the gtk client.
> 
> Someone actually did a QT port of the client a while back.  I think
> it was the first client port to something other than Xaw, unless you
> count my port to Xaw3d.  I don't think they ever actually finished
> with it.
> 
> People bitched about QT not being under the GPL.

That's imprecise.  People (rightly) bitched that the GPL and the old
Qt license are incompatible.  To be more precise, if you create a work
that is a derived work of a number of components, you must respect the
licenses of all the works involved if you wish to distribute it.
Since the QPL and predecessors set conditions that were explicitly
disallowed by the GPL, the two could not be used together.  QED.

There is a GPL FAQ somewhere on www.gnu.org.  It's a good reference
for stuff like this.

> You are not allowed to distribute a GPLed program that requires
> other closed source software to compile, unless that software is
> part of the OS.  For some unknown reason that seems rather
> hypocritical to me, microsoft's compilers and libraries, or the
> Motif widget library, are part of the OS and ok.

Motif is part of most commerical unixes, but is not part of any
GNU/Linux or BSD that I know of.  So you could write GPLed programs
for commercial unixes that uses Motif, but not Linux programs.  It's
interesting to note that DDD, the Data Display Debugger, did not
become GNU software until it was possible to compile it with LessTif,
which is a free reimplementation of Motif.

It's interesting to note that the "OS component" exemption does not
apply if you distribute together with the "OS component" that you're
using.  So, for instance, Microsoft would not be able to bundle
Freeciv along with Windows.  This is also the reason why places such
as sunfreeware.org exist.

> But the "almost" open source QT was out of the question.

And a good thing, too.  "almost" is not good enough.  It would be a
bad thing if the (annoying and onerous) restrictions in the QPL had
become commonplace.

> So that and worrying about microprose suing them made whoever did
> the qt port give up.  Maybe now that QT is open source ok and RMS
> has "forgiven"

You may wish to have a look at the following part of the GPL "Any
attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the
Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this license."  That is why this is necessary.

> all the KDE people who ported other people's software to qt without
> getting permission first, it would be acceptable to do a Qt port.

Absolutely, since Qt is now available under the GPL.

-- 
Big Gaute                               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gs234/
ONE:  I will donate my entire ``BABY HUEY'' comic book collection
 to the downtown PLASMA CENTER..
 TWO:  I won't START a BAND called ``KHADAFY & THE HIT SQUAD''..
 THREE:  I won't ever TUMBLE DRY my FOX TERRIER again!!