Re: GPL only

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @04:50

Linking as "creating a derivative work" is so widely accepted in the community that I would certainly not want to go against it. That's a good link David, I was aware of the position, but unaware of the document to go with it. Thanks.

I personally disagree with the technical reason you cite, anon. Otherwise, merely cloning the interface would be enough to infringe on the copyright (remember Harmony?). There are fringe cases such as macros though.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Jim Dabell
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: GPL only
by anon on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @08:58

Well it does mean that, and as far as I know it is true.

If you clone the interface/macros etc in a clean room manner, then you've hit the jackpot. Of course you have to link against your clone and make sure it actually works with the real Qt.

Logical conclusion...

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"You would know that after informal research, KDE developers prefer tea!" -- Roberto Alsina
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.