Re: [Off-topic] Licenses (Was: How to reratify the DFSG ?)
> Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I can now see where the point of contention is. And yes, it does worry me.
> > However, like other things I'm going to let it be resolved BEFORE I give up
> > on it. While unlikely, it IS possible that the Troll Tech people or the FSF
> > people will come to their senses and change their licenses to be more
> > reasonable.
> > We hope.
> Since it's the Troll Tech license which introduced the problem (in part
> by explicitly requiring a copy of the FSF license then making other
> explicit requirements which contradict that license), I don't think it's
> right to expect the FSF folks to try to fix the problem.
It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that
software that is linked against Qt, and purports to be covered by the GPL,
in fact has no valid licence.
As such, we have not in fact been granted the right to distribute that code,
and should remove it from our servers until the issue is resolved.
We should also point this fact out to the maintainers of other freeware
archives, since they are also distributing the code without valid permission.
Of course, authors of this software can distribute it under a more liberal
licence than the GPL if they so choose, as mentioned in one of the other
alternatives mentioned in the Qt licence:
Users of your software can obtain source code for the software, freely
modify the source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright
notices, attributions and legal responsibility), and freely
redistribute original or modified versions of the software.
[invalid GPL alternatives]
unless you subscribe to the view that an invalid clause in a contract,
invalidates the contract as a whole, in which case Qt has no licence for free
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org