Advogato post for 2000-09-05 20:31:43
So that people can understand why RMS pisses me off so much: for YEARS he has been saying that the problem with KDE was that the QPL and the GPL were incompatible, and that if they were not incompatible, there would be no problem.
That is also what Debian has been saying (and saying, and saying, and...).
And now that Qt is GPL, lo and behold, "oh, yeah, KDE is still illegal".
Long ago, I saw someone write: "They will not be happy until Qt is GPL". Well not even then, it seems.
BTW: I got one reply telling me where the GPL says about forfeiting rights.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Just so you see how stupid this is:
This would mean that if I combined Qt and GPL code from the FSF, and give it to Joe (example person), then it's illegal for me to use and distribute that code from now on. But not for Joe, because now Joe is in compliance and excepted!
Then, I must ask Joe to give me a copy. Now, because of the GPL's section 6, I now have a legal license to keep on coding:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Now, does it mean I have to find someone who has never used KDE, give him a copy of the CVS tree and the argument is void? Yes. This is one of the reasons why the GPL is BADLY WRITTEN.