Re: Debian i386 freeze
Hi,
>>"Oliver" == Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
Oliver> Raul's proposition appears to go that the GPL licence,
Oliver> applied to the software by its authors, entitles 3rd parties
Oliver> to rights beyond those given to us by the authors. I cannot
Oliver> see any possible way to support this argument.
I think you misunderstand the argument. The license that is
being used does give users of the binaries (if any binaries are
distributed) the right to modify everything that is needed to create
the binary -- and this includes the interface definition files
(headers) from QT.
That violates Troll licence, really, for QT; this is teh
reason we may not distribute KDE binaries.
Oliver> The GPL (applied by kde) can only apply to kde's own code,
Oliver> not to anyone else's. If it is necessary to link some
Oliver> non-free software, in the knowledge of kde (which is the
Oliver> case), they must necessarily have given consent to do this by
Oliver> the very fact of releasing their software and inviting the
Oliver> world to use it. In addition, one of their developers has
Oliver> specifically given consent on this mailing list.
Umm, this is streatching it. The right to modify QT headers is
not theirs to give; a pure GPL implies it for binaries; we, if we
distribute the binaries, are equally at fault.
Why can't all this implied knowledge be written down, up
front, by the KDE folks? Consent on the mailing list is not as good
as written consent in the package/license it self (I do not want to
argue, in court, whether the person sending an informal mail message
actually represented the developers, or not).
Oliver> People keep losing sight of the fact that the licence is
Oliver> applied by the authors of the software. It gives the right
Oliver> to use the software under the conditions stated. The licence
Oliver> is not a contract; it is completely one-sided. It cannot be
Oliver> enforced against a supplier by a recipient, because it is NOT
Oliver> a contract. It can only be enforced by the software authors.
We can only distribute the binaries if we meet the terms of
the license. One of the terms of the license is that modifications of
*all* the source code is permitted. If that violates the Troll
license, then our distribution of the binaries is illegal.
We do not know if the authors shall never sue us, for indeed,
if they were so committed, they would have amended the license.
Oliver> The purpose of the GPL is to enable software authors to keep
Oliver> their software free. It contaminates any derivative works,
Oliver> so that they in turn have to be under the GPL. However, it
Oliver> cannot work backwards, otherwise Motif would now be GPL'd
Oliver> too!
Motif, on Solaris and other Unices, is deemed system software,
that is, it is exected to be on the system as shipped. In which case,
you can link GPLed software. You are right, though, I do not think we
can supply Motif linked software, since Motif is not shipped with
Linux.
Oliver> This is where the frustration comes in - people do not seem
Oliver> able to understand that the licence, whether GPL or
Oliver> otherwise, is wholly under the control of the authors.
Oh, absolutely: they have the rights; and seems to me those
rights prevent us from distributing binaries, since we, the
distrivbutors, have to follow the license.
Oliver> It can be varied or withdrawn at any time. This is inherent
Oliver> in the authors' rights under the Berne Convention. I think
Oliver> that the convention might well allow an author to withdraw
Oliver> software from free use, even if it had previously been put
Oliver> under GPL. The author might publish an announcement
Oliver> withdrawing all licences, and this would (I think) be legally
Oliver> binding; he would be unilaterally withdrawing a right that he
Oliver> had unilaterally granted. Of course, he would have trouble
Oliver> enforcing this, because of the difficulty of ensuring the
Oliver> announcement was seen by everyone affected.
Umm, no. I think not. You may be able to put out a new
version under a different licence, but if licenses were allowed to
change from instant to instant, then licensees would have no
protection at all, and the whole system would be useless.
Oliver> (If the author had supplied software for a consideration, he
Oliver> would not be able to withdraw the licence to his customer,
Oliver> because then there would be a contract enforceable by the
Oliver> customer against the author.)
I think that money changing hads has little to do with whether
there is a contract or not. At least, not under US law, afaik. So
mocrosoft money is under a license, which you can't break, even if
there has been no change of money.
manoj
--
"It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence
of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to
produce itself in the obviousness of value." Baudrillard
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: