Big development in the GUI realm

[Robert Kern]

Luke Skywalker wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
> <tchur at optushome.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program contained in 
>>the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as a 
>>derivative work in local copyright law (local because the GPL does not nominate a 
>>particular jurisdiction for covering law).
> 
> 
> Has someone worked with Qt for Windows before, and could tell us
> whether it involves static or dynamic linking?
> 
> If dynamic, then, it doesn't make sense that an EXE that builds on Qt
> should also be GPLed.

*shrug* To my knowledge, no court has ruled either way on the issue. The 
FSF holds the position that the new program *should* have a 
GPL-compatible license and that the GPL terms hold for the program as a 
whole. Trolltech also holds this position, I believe (and this is the 
important point if you want to avoid being sued, regardless of how a 
court would decide).

Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation of 
the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably 
wager that the court would hold that only static linking would force the 
program as a whole to follow the GPL terms. However, I certainly don't 
have the money to pony up to run a test case. Consequently, I try to 
follow the wishes of the copyright holder.

-- 
Robert Kern
rkern at ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
  Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
   -- Richard Harter