Post withdrawn

It does not change the position of KDE, since Qt is available under both the LGPL and GPL with Qt 4.5, therefore making Qt compliant with the Free Software Foundation definition of free software ( free as in speech ).

OMG, this old discussion again? When things are released under GPL / LGPL, why does the 'is it free software' discussion stick to KDE like a nasty fly? And 'rumour has it' sounds just a bit too, well, rumoury... In fact, I find the tone of the post to be rather tendentious, and not only 'thought' provoking.

Can we please have this be over with for once and for all?

XiniX wrote:Can we please have this be over with for once and for all?

It will never be over. Way back at the beginning, KDE was Evil because Qt was proprietary. Then Qt was released as QPL, but KDE was still Evil because QPL was not GPL compatible. Then Qt was released as GPL, but KDE was still Evil because GPL is too restrictive. Finally Qt was released as LGPL, but still KDE is Evil because LGPL is too restrictive on embedded platforms.

You cannot please these people. If they believe that everything should be public domain, then be brave and say that. I can respect that viewpoint. But don't hide behind a GNU philosophy while complaining that KDE is not free enough. That's beyond stupid.

Even thought I don't know what the original post consisted of, it seems like trolling.
I really don't understand those that are bringing this still out.

Now for a bit of rant: I really don't care for GPL, I personally believe it's only value is idealogical, and I don't agree with that ideology.
For me BSD licence makes much more sense as it's really free and not just free in confined space of RMS definition.

OK sorry for the rant, but I just had to let it out .

OH and I feel we can close this thread now. Unfortunately my mod powers are confined to Brainstorm section.

@Primoz
(L)GPL brings the freedom to the software. And through that, it brings the freedom to the users.

BSD (the revised BSD license) brings the freedom to the user. Even the freedom to lock the software, and put it into jail.

To be honest, if I was RMS, I'd make the copyleft a requirement for all Free Software licenses. It is, after all, called Free Software, and not Software for Free Users.

ivan wrote:@Primoz
(L)GPL brings the freedom to the software. And through that, it brings the freedom to the users.

Software is inanimate, not sentient, not human. It cannot be "free", but it can be unencumbered. The BSD license recognizes this, while GNU pretends that software has rights. It's not about the reciprocity, which is fine, but about two totally different world views.