Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"

[Tim Smith]

In article <87ws2sybe7.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
wrote:

> Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in
> >> the GPL.  It has to do with non-free software.
> >>
> >> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release
> >> it under a free license after all.
> >>
> >> Where is your problem with that?
> >
> > he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you
> > make it out.
> 
> He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases.

No, I say it because the license is not as clear cut as you think it is. 
For most users of KDE, Qt was shipped as a component of the OS. It 
should qualify for the system component exception of GPL. The FSF 
thought that it didn't.

Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly qualifies 
for the system component exception?

-- 
--Tim Smith