Licensing issues with dbus and dbus-glib
thiago at kde.org
Thu May 31 09:57:09 PDT 2007
Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
>Of course the 'truth' in the context of contract interpretation is
> defined by common perception and I guess a good litmus test to this
> understanding would be if KDE for instance came out and said that now
> that Qt is part of the LSB it is to be considered a system library and
> thus there is no need anymore to pay TrollTech to develop closed source
> Qt applications for Linux. If that ends up uncontested by TrollTech it
> would set a mighty precedent.
Sorry, but I do not think this example is valid.
The GPL allows you to link to GPL-incompatible components if they are
considered part of the system. Even if we accept the hypothesis is Qt
part of the system, closed source applications are hardly so. So, a
GPL'ed Qt wouldn't be allowed to link to a closed-source application.
The example would be valid if Qt were licensed under GPL-incompatible
licenses only (like the QPL or commercial licenses) and you wanted to
link a GPL application to it.
Disclaimer: I used to work for Trolltech.
>Personally I prefer not to rely on system library clause for anything
> not specifically listed in the GPL which for the GPL3 means glibc and
> xlib as that is the only way currently to not get your lawyers into
> panick mode.
Same here. That was just a random thought.
Even if we considered libdbus-1 a system library on Linux, I think it
would hardly be so in other systems, especially MacOS X and Windows. (The
other Unixes might be more accommodating).
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20070531/bb087e6a/attachment.pgp
More information about the dbus