Re: Debian i386 freeze
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Oliver> This is fantasy - or paranoia.
>
> Umm, this comes perilously close to name calling. I think Raul
> has raised a valid point; and calling it fantasy is a very weak
> counter argument.
My apologies - this was frustration speaking. Let me supply some proper
argument.
Raul's proposition appears to go that the GPL licence, applied to the
software by its authors, entitles 3rd parties to rights beyond those
given to us by the authors. I cannot see any possible way to support
this argument.
The GPL (applied by kde) can only apply to kde's own code, not to anyone
else's. If it is necessary to link some non-free software, in the knowledge
of kde (which is the case), they must necessarily have given consent to do
this by the very fact of releasing their software and inviting the world to
use it. In addition, one of their developers has specifically given consent
on this mailing list.
People keep losing sight of the fact that the licence is applied by the
authors of the software. It gives the right to use the software under
the conditions stated. The licence is not a contract; it is completely
one-sided. It cannot be enforced against a supplier by a recipient,
because it is NOT a contract. It can only be enforced by the software
authors.
Any contract for the supply of a CD containing software is a separate issue.
Debian do not do this; therefore no-one can have an enforceable contract
with Debian. Anyone supplying a CD should state that it is supplied as
a convenient means of obtaining the Debian software archive; they should
not give any warranty about the software itself (after all, how could they),
nor should they be claiming to be conveying any rights in the software.
They should merely offer to supply a CD from which the archive can be read
without error.
The purpose of the GPL is to enable software authors to keep their software
free. It contaminates any derivative works, so that they in turn have to
be under the GPL. However, it cannot work backwards, otherwise Motif would
now be GPL'd too!
This is where the frustration comes in - people do not seem able to
understand that the licence, whether GPL or otherwise, is wholly under the
control of the authors. It can be varied or withdrawn at any time. This
is inherent in the authors' rights under the Berne Convention. I think
that the convention might well allow an author to withdraw software from
free use, even if it had previously been put under GPL. The author might
publish an announcement withdrawing all licences, and this would (I think)
be legally binding; he would be unilaterally withdrawing a right that he
had unilaterally granted. Of course, he would have trouble enforcing
this, because of the difficulty of ensuring the announcement was seen by everyone affected.
(If the author had supplied software for a consideration, he would not be
able to withdraw the licence to his customer, because then there would be
a contract enforceable by the customer against the author.)
Any way, the crucial points are:
A software licence, unless part of a contract, is enforceable only
by the software authors.
Debian do not enter into any contracts.
Therefore, no licence can be enforced against Debian by a licensee.
It follows that, for Debian, there is no problem and no need to change
anything.
A CD manufacturer should explicitly disclaim any rights in the software
on the CD; he should only claim to provide a readable CD that contains
a specified set of files. But, whatever he chooses to do, it is not our
problem but his. If he considers it worthwhile, he can add a disclaimer
at the top level of the contrib CD.
Now, some detailed analysis of the GPL, as applied to kde:
1: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it,..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This indicates that you do not have to make efforts to go beyond what you
received yourself, when distributing GPL software.
2. b) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
This is the basis for claiming that linked libraries `contaminate' a
software product. This is obvious in the case of static linking, but
extremely dubious in the case of dynamic linking, which does not
include any of the library but only a set of hooks for calling its
facilities. A program that dynamically links a GPL library is not
derived from it (that term would imply a new library developed from the
GPL code), neither does it contain it; therefore, as a matter of objective
analysis, it seems to me that the GPL does not achieve the object of the
FSF in the case of dynamic linking. [No doubt this is because the GPL
was drawn up before dynamic linking was in common use(?)]
3. "You may copy and distribute the Program...provided that you also...
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code,..."
Debian provide Qt in the non-free section of the archive. The archive is
the way in which we supply all our other packages, so this sufficently
fulfils our obligations under this clause, in the case of kde.
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..."
`The Program', in this case, means kde, not Qt, which the kde authors have
no rights over (nor do they claim any). There is nothing here to support
the idea that this asserts any rights over Qt.
7. "If ... conditions are imposed on you ... that contradict the conditions
of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
License..."
This does not apply to kde/Qt, because the GPL is talking about a new
program made from kde. It envisages some circumstance where a licensee
wants to incorporated patented algorithms in a derived work, or withhold
the source to some part of a derived work or where rights given
by the kde authors are not permitted to be passed on by a licensee.
The first two do not apply, and all the rights given _can_ be passed on;
no right over Qt was given, so none need to be passed on.
10. "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission..."
Again, this is talking about incorporating _kde_ into other programs; it
does not apply to kde's own reliance on Qt.
It is also clear from the above that kde cannot incorporate or derive
from any other GPL software without the consent of the authors of that
software. The kde maintainer should make sure that there are no such
unauthorised works included in the kde packages.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: