Re: Debian i386 freeze
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > > Please get it clear that kde's GPL licence can only apply to kde code.
> >
> > I agree that the KDE folks are the only people that can force people to abide
> > by the GPL on their code, and that they have no right to do anything about the
> > way people deal with the Qt code.
> >
> > Where I disagree however is that the GPL confers rights to the recipient of a
> > program, as well as upon the distributor, and those rights are enforceable by
> > the recipient (otherwise people could GPL their code, wait for it to get
> > popular, and then withdraw the GPL, and cash in).
>
> As the copyright holder they have the right to change the license at any
> time. Thus, the next release of any GPL code, by the author can always be
> more restrictive, even completely proprietary. The copyright empowers the
> creation of the license, not the other way around.
But not this release. This release is covered by the copyright that it was
covered by when it was released. End of story. If that was the GPL, then
that version is always covered by the GPL.
If that comes to be against the author's wishes, they cannot retroactively
withdraw the version that was covered by the GPL. Otherwise the GPL would be
totally worthless.
> > In the case of KDE, the rights that are supposedly being given are neither
> > ours, nor the KDE folks' to grant, so the GPL should not be used.
> >
> FUD. KDE has the perfect right to apply the GPL to their code.
But not to a binary that includes more than their code.
> > > and in any case the kde package does not include Qt, which is, of course,
> > > a separate library.
> >
> > So KDE is compilable without using the Qt header files, is that right ?
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> And thus its dependence on non-free code. The KDE source is free by the
> definition of the DFSG, but can not be included in main because it depends
> on a non-free library for its construction and use. This is the clear
> definition of a contrib package.
Yes. The source is free. The binary is not.
>
> > And if you are correct, why is this clause in the GPL:
> >
> > For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> > the executable.
> >
> > I think the header files it's compiled with and the libraries it was linked
> > against count as ``interface definition files''.
> >
> The GPL cannot impose such demands on the QT software, and can only apply
> to the code that the author has created.
Right, so we cannot use it as our licence to distribute the binaries. I'm
glad we agree on this point.
> > You cannot say ``It doesn't apply, because the KDE folks didn't write it'',
> > because how can someone obtaining a binary package from our site determine
> > which bits of the package are covered by the GPL.
> >
> They don't have to. The binary will only work if the library is available
> at runtime. The license only controls the KDE source, and the product of
> that source is freely distributable under that license.
It's not the product of only the KDE source, but a combination of the KDE and
Qt sources, and so is subject to restrictions resulting from both their
licences. That means that the license for the KDE binaries cannot blithely
assume that the GPL is OK for it's distribution, because it is also restricted
by the conditions of the Qt licence.
The licence for the binaries that we use to enable people to take the
binaries and use them has to be something that takes account of both
licences, not just one.
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: