[ILUG] RMS: KDE in violation of GPL

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 Twomey_Mark at emc.com wrote:

> 	Speak for yourself..it Linux not GNU/Linux, the FSF contribution is
> invaluable but it's not the be all end all and he is not the second coming.
> 

no he isn't. but he started the ball rolling, and that counts.

> 	So what? what's you point?, Troll go the final mile GPL the major
> point of contention and then he uses it as an opportunity to beat up on KDE.
>

the problem isn't with Troll. they can do what they want. KDE can do
what they want too. However there is a problem with what they have
done wrt to licences, and Stallman is involved because they are trying
to claim that their code is GPL.

Stallman views the problem as potentially diluting the GPL, and he
must of neccessity defend against that. If the KDE authors were to
release 2.x as BSD/NPL/etc and not include GPL code Stallman would no
longer be involved.
 
> 	He point's out his facts in a very condescending manner. Instead of
> saying "you've done a good thing guys, now lets clean up the rest of what I
> think is a mess.", he decides to take a jab at a project he's been critical
> about since it's inception.
>

Stallman has a goal:

- a totally 'Free Software' world.
- KDE does not quite fit in that model, yet KDE claim they do.

If he says nothing it becomes an implicit accpetance that the KDE
model does fit with his goal. But it doesn't fit, so he must make it
clear that there is a problem with KDE and his goal (as advanced by
the GPL).
 
> 	I'd like to point out that it was the rise of KDE that got the FSF
> off it's backside and working on the GNOME/Harmony projects. 

FSF didn't start those projects. Also Stallman has become a preacher,
and people sort of join his FSF church. It's not up to Stallman or his
FSF to write/start code. It's up to Stallman and the FSF to convert
people to join in  his vision to write the code.

KDE claim to be in the church, yet don't abide by it's terms. Don't
you think that if a highly visible Catholic were to consistently push
some agenda that Rome really didn't like that the Catholic Church
would voice it's objections - and would be justified in doing so.
(never mind whether either parties agenda is the 'right' one).

And if KDE helped kickstart GNOME - excellent.

> It wasn't the
> KDE team that went 1.0 at the first LinuxWorld months before

You have a point certainly, but let's keep GNOME out of it cause we're
talking about KDE and GPL.
 	 
> Two things, it's not his forgiveness to give, "Saint" Stallman has no right
> to forgive anyone, statements like that prove what a narrow mind he has.

it most certainly is his right if KDE included FSF copyrighted code.

He had these choices:

- do nothing (weakens GPL) 
- attack KDE for its FSF copyrighted GPL transgressions (affirms GPL) 
- forgive KDE for FSF copyrighted GPL transgressions (affirms GPL)

> If
> KDE or others broke the GPL, they broke the law..go sue them. If they broke
> it and he did not sue them then the GPL is nothing than words on a page.

GPL has never been tested, but in a way it doesn't matter as long as
everyone complies.

> Forgive them?, screw that.

> As for vendetta against KDE, he's been openly critical about it since it's
> inception.

yes he has. It goes against his vision. And for KDE to try ally
themselves to that vision when he doesn't think they fit in is silly.

KDE should either: 

- completely resolve the GPL problems
- Go BSD licence

> A person who has class would see this a positive act and would
> openly state so without recourse.

class? 

Look at it from Stallman's possible POV (even if you don't agree, and
even though an eccentric he may be). He has a goal and has worked for
a /long/ time towards that goal and converting people to that goal.

So KDE came along, and started telling everyone that they too are part
of Stallman's vision (for the GPL must be considered the vehicle for
Stallman's vision), Yet to Stallman they are tainted, compromising
themselves by depending on QT and so he feels they do not share his
goal, indeed they are possibly more a threat to his goal than any
fully proprietary software.

So he must attack them in order to keep his goal alive.

> inflexible. "Until then, the GNU Project is going to support its own team
> vigorously. Go get 'em, gnomes!".

that sounds like reasonably competitive but friendly banter to me.

> Though GNOME may be part of his team, you think he could transcend
> that for just one moment but no he had to get his plug in.

he has a vision and a goal. he wants to change things (whether you
agree or not). these people can be annoying to many. Yet they are very
neccessary to mankind.

> How very Microsoft of him, turn a positive act from an alleged
> competitor into an opportunity to crap on them.

KDE: "hey look, QT /will/ go GPL in the /future/. So everythings cool
/now/ with the FSF"

RMS: "ermm.. there's still a few niggly problems /now/. But i forgive
you. And /until/ you are completely free: Go on the GNOMES!"

sounds reasonable to me. No one ever forced KDE to use the GPL. They
chose it themselves, and as such they should have abided by it's
terms. It's not their cake, they can't just lick the icing off and
throw the rest out. 

(they could have invented their own licence if they wanted that).

> What was important
> here should have been that Troll crossed the rubicon and went GPL.  

that's up to Troll. Seems they have been converted.

> If it's a situation where it's Stallmans way or the highway you'll
> watch people hitting the road in droves.

"Watch out here comes the FSF militia! oh no they're going to make me
release my 'open source' project under GPL!"

It's not like that, and you know it.

> >  then go play somewhere else.
> 	 
> > --paulj
> > 
> 	Grow up Paul.

not a chance. :)

> > 	Mark.

--paulj