Re: intent to package: licq

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> 
> Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> > 
> > Well, I don't think we have a licence to distribute KDE binaries at present.
> >
> > People seem to assume that I say this because I hate KDE, or something,
> > which is not true.
> 
> Ok, so I think you're right but I don't think this means we shouldn't be
> putting them in contrib until the problem is fixed. Why? Because the only
> party with standing to sue are the KDE authors which clearly intend for it to
> be distributable.

If this were true, I'd agree with you, but it is not.

We are currently distributing KDE under the GPL, so if someone gets the code 
from us, we have distributed the ``program''.  If you read the GPL it says:

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
  original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions.

``These terms and conditions'' includes the right to modify the full source 
for the program.  Neither we, nor the KDE authors have the ability to give the 
recipient the right to modify Qt's code, therefore we are not in compliance 
with this clause.

Elsewhere in the GPL, we see:

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
  except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
  otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
  void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

that we cannot distribute the program at all, because we are not in compliance 
with it.

Q.E.D.  Time to delete the KDE binaries.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that a company that got a supposedly GPL 
program from us, modified the source, and subsequently got sued by Troll Tech 
for modifying Qt, would be tempted to sue SPI for breach of contract.

> However, the problem really does need to be fixed in the
> long term, and it wouldn't be hard to do so:
> 
> 1) They distribute their binaries under a license which says basically:
>    ``You may distribute this package under the terms of the GPL with the
>      additional exception that you may distribute it linked against the 
>      Qt libraries without including Qt library source.''

They need to do something like this.

> 2) The Qt people extend their license to allow distribution under this
>    modified license. I'm not sure, their existing terms may allow this
>    already.

They do.  The GPL bit is a 1 of 3 options thing.

> 3) In theory the KDE people might need permission to distribute the modified
>    GPL because the GPL itself it copyrighted. However I think this is moot,
>    RMS has on several occasions suggested writing exceptions just like this.
> 
> However, it shouldn't be an immediate concern, because as i mentioned, it is
> clearly the intent of the KDE people to allow redistribution of the programs.
> If the permission to distribute without Qt source is not forthcoming after
> then we might have to reconsider that assumption.

People keep telling us that we don't have to worry about the lack of a licence 
because some KDE author has sent an e-mail saying that they didn't really mean 
it when they said it was GPL'd.

I beg to differ.  A contract is a contract.  If we are not empowered to 
distribute KDE binaries under the GPL, and we have no licence to distribute 
them otherwise, then we should not be distributing them.

Otherwise, why did we not just go ahead and distribute Netscape ?

An example:

  If Microsoft put a copy of IE under the GPL, but without actually
  publishing the source, should we distribute it ?

  Would the poeple to whom we distribute it not be rightly enraged that
  we were unable to provide modifiable copies of the source upon request,
  since that was what they were promised under the GPL.

  Would it make any difference if a Microsoft spokesman emailed us
  saying that they had no intention of suing anyone for distributing IE ?

  How is this different from the KDE/Qt situation ?

Cheers, Phil.



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org