| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 30, 2003 22:30 UTC (Tue) by goonie (subscriber, #4252)In reply to: LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions by arcticwolf
Parent article: LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
While who knows how a court might interpret things, and I'm no lawyer, the intent of the LGPL and GPL when applied to licenses is clear. You can't legally link closed-source code to a GPL library, and then distribute the linked code. You can link closed-source code to an LGPL'd library and distribute the results (with some restrictions - the easiest way to meet those is to use dynamic linking). The Qt library is GPL'd, so if you want to link closed-source code to it and distribute that code, you need to make alternative arrangements with the Qt copyright holders, Troll Tech. All the GNOME libraries are LGPL'd, so there are no such requirements for it.Therefore, from a licensing point of view, GNOME is a better option for proprietary developers than KDE.
As proprietary applications will be with us for some time, it remains my view that GNOME is the less risky option.
(Log in to post comments)
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 0:32 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
Therefore, from a licensing point of view, GNOME is a better option for proprietary developers than KDE.Well, I've worked on big proprietary C++ project and the GUI guys used Qt. I don't know their reasons, but managers tend to like software with support contracts - and the Trolltech developers created some patches just for us when we've found bugs in Qt.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 2:02 UTC (Wed) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
Do I actually *directly* link to the Qt libraries when I build a KDE application, though?
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 5:15 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]
These days, yes you do. Run ldd on your binary.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Jan 5, 2004 19:38 UTC (Mon) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
ldd links the application, then reports the linkages.The application is not linked until runtime (or until you run ldd),
which still begs the question of whether it is directly linked or not.
Linked, not linked - what's the difference ?
Posted Jan 8, 2004 22:04 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Why the hell it's even discussed here ? It's not important if Qt is linked directly to application or not. It is important if it's derived work or not. And here answer is clear: you can not build kdelibs or KDE application wothout Qt, you program need deep understanding of Qt internals to work so it's clearly derived work. End of story. Is it linked or loaded via dlopen() it's irrelevant.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Jan 8, 2004 3:19 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
It doesn't matter if you directly link or not. If you link anything to the GPL, it becomes implicitly GPLd. If the LGPL library depends on the GPL library, it must be under the terms of the GPL. Therefor, any apps that link to the LGPL library are bound by the same terms as if they linked against the GPL library. At least, this is how it was explained to me by the FSF a few years ago when I had GPL vs BSD linking questions for them.