Is really the whole ReactOS GPL? Then its a problem.

[theUser BL]

Hi!

In your forum existing a question without any answer:
http://www.reactos.com/content/view/full/1493

And I wonder. Is the complete ReactOS under the GPL?

On the main-side of the homepage there stand:
>  License
> ReactOS is licensed under the GNU General Public License. 
But if really the complete ReactOS is under the GPL (and without an special 
exception like in the GNU Classpath project 
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html).

The problem of the GPL is, that you can't link GPL-incompatible programs 
(that are the most of the Windows-programs) with GPL libraries.
In the FAQ there stand nothing about this. But I have seen, that you have 
discussed this at
http://reactos.com:8080/archives/public/ros-general/2004-February/000703.ht…

But it seems, that you are still happy with the GPL.

Have a look at Linux. The primary widget-toolkits are GTK+ and Qt. GTK+ is 
licensed under the LGPL, thats ok. But Qt is licensed under the GPL (and 
QPL) for free. And there existing a third license for commercial use.
If you want to create a closed-source library, which linked to Qt, you need 
the commercial license of the Qt, because you can only link to 
GPL-libraries, if your program is GPL-compatible.

I think, that ReactOS needs more to be LGPL, then GNU/Linux.
All modules for the Linux-kernel and all drivers are GPL. And they _must_ be 
GPL, because the kernel is GPL.

But you want to use with ReactOS closed-source drivers. So your 
ReactOS-kernel can not be GPL or it is not legal to use all the 
MS-Windows-drivers for ReactOS.

The problem is not only, to run programs on ReactOS. I think, it would be 
nice, if it is possible, to create GPL-incompatible 
programs/libraries/drivers on ReactOS without using MS-Windows.


I see a very big problem in the use of the GPL in ReactOS.
Do you have contacted the FreeSoftwareFoundation or Richard Stallman, what 
they think about the legallity of using proprietary 
programs/libraries/drivers with an ReactOS, which is completly under the 
GPL?


Greatings
theuserbl

_________________________________________________________________
E-Mails sind Ihnen nicht schnell genug? http://www.msn.de/messenger MSN 
Messenger - Kommunikation in Echtzeit

[Filip Navara]

theUser BL wrote:

>   If you want to create a closed-source library, which
> linked to Qt, you 
>  need the commercial license of the Qt, because you can only link to 
>  GPL-libraries, if your program is GPL-compatible. 

This situation is a bit different, because the closed-source library 
*strictly needs* the Qt and can't function properly without it. ReactOS 
on the other hand doesn't require these 3rd party drivers and links to 
them dynamicly. Also this issue was already discussed (see the 
ros-general mailing list archives) even with Richard Stallman's comments.

- Filip

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 11.56 24/02/2004, you wrote:
>  The problem of the GPL is, that you can't link
> GPL-incompatible programs 
> (that are the most of the Windows-programs) with GPL libraries. 
please, don't get too wound up in technicalities, use your common sense. 
It's the intention that matters, not contorted semantic trickery: the 
intention of who wrote those programs was clearly to produce programs that 
use *Windows functionality*, not programs that use *our code*. Therefore 
they have no obligation towards us

>  If you want to create a closed-source library, which
> linked to Qt, you 
> need the commercial license of the Qt, because you can only link to 
> GPL-libraries, if your program is GPL-compatible. 
not to sound like a fool (to me, at least), try this simple exercise: never 
say "GPL". We all know what the license says, and we all know ReactOS is 
licensed under those terms, there's no need to repeatedly bang us in the 
head with keywords. But most importantly there's nothing magic about the 
GPL. It's just a license, its terms are perfectly reasonable and it fits 
the needs of many software projects. Regain control of our brain, realize 
that if you just say "the license" the sense of our argument won't change a

bit. You may also realize, as a side effect, that most of what you're 
saying implies something mystical or magical about the GPL, and, that 
definitely not being the case, that you should rethink all of it

That said, it's still a matter of intentions. You don't write Qt programs 
with the intention of having them use the functionality of a hypothetical, 
abstract "Qt interface". You write a Qt program to use the Qt library by 
Trolltech inc., licensed under terms such and such. If there was, say, a 
public-domain clone of Qt, then your intention *could* be to use the 
abstract "Qt interface" described by the publically available 
documentation, so you *could* ignore the licensing terms set by Trolltech

>  All modules for the Linux-kernel and all drivers are
> GPL. And they _must_ 
> be GPL, because the kernel is GPL. 
now try to reformulate this in term of intentions, and without ever saying 
"Linux" or "GPL" - call them "the system" and "the
system's license". Using 
emotionally charged words to win an argument is a bit too easy, isn't it?

>  But you want to use with ReactOS closed-source drivers.
> So your 
> ReactOS-kernel can not be GPL or it is not legal to use all the 
> MS-Windows-drivers for ReactOS. 
no intention to use our code, no infringement