[Freeciv-Dev] Re: KCiv?

[Gaute B Strokkenes <gs234@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Gaute B Strokkenes wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> But does porting software to use a widget library create a derived
> work?  I don't think so.

Sure it is.  If it was not the case, then e.g. Troll Tech would have
no legal basis for demanding that people who wish to make Qt programs
conform to the Qt license.  Think about it.

> You might as well say that the gtk/windows port of freeciv is a
> derived work of microsoft's libraries, because it links with them.

It is.

>> 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
> 
> That doesn't make any sense what so ever.  I compiled a GPLed
> program that requires motif called xmcd on linux.  Was it ok for
> people to distribute xmcd's source before I compiled it on linux?

IANAL, but yes.  

> Can people distribute the source to xmcd with the disclaimer that
> you aren't allowed to use it on Linux or any other operating system
> that doesn't come standard with motif libraries?

I don't think such a notice would (strictly speaking) be required, but
it's certainly helpful for the unwary.

> What if I release a Linux distro called LandLocked that doesn't come
> with a C library.  I make people buy another package called
> CoastLine in order to get a C library.  Since nearly every piece of
> GPL software requires a C library, and my OS doesn't come with one,
> is all that GPL software now violating the GPL?  It require a
> component that isn't part of my OS.

Tricky.  Please read the GPL FAQ to see if you can find the answer, or
ask someone with more detailed legal knowledge.

>> > 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.
> 
> I know that.  Why do you think I mentioned it?

To diss RMS?  You were not using neutral language, but then you seldom
do.

-- 
Big Gaute                               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gs234/
This is my WILLIAM BENDIX memorial CORNER where I worship William
 Bendix like a GOD!!