Hello
sorry, I forget the list..
Grisu
----- Forwarded message from Michael Bramer <michael> -----
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:56:04 +0200
From: Michael Bramer <michael>
To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>
Subject: Re: Debian i386 freeze
On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 03:29:08PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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.
Not in all way. In two case not:
1.) I get the kde-source (GPLed) and make modifications on it and distribute
the new code. The KDE-team can not change the copyright of the new KDE.
All copyight holder must change the license.
2.) If the KDE-team include GPL-Code from other copyright holder (like klyx,
lynx is GPLed) the KDE-team is not the copyright holder. In the same way,
all copyright holder must change the copyright.
If a software one time GPLed and is with this Copyright distributed, the Code
is for all time GPLed. But it is right, alle copyright holder can change the
copyright and make a new Version. But you must ask all people who work on the
program (for example with patches).
> > 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.
This is right.
In this case say GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
so _we_ can not distribute KDE as binary!
Remove the binary.
Grisu
----- End forwarded message -----
Attachment:
pgpprUFXvEe08.pgp
Description: PGP signature