Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > This GPL argument if taken to it's logical conclusion would
> > prevent all GPL'ed code from running on any non-GPL'ed OS, as the
> > applications have to link with the platform libraries, and are
> > resultantly dependant on the non-GPL'ed OS.
>
> Indeed. If you read the GPL word for word you will find that a binary
> distribution requires ALL libraries to be distributed under the GPL.
>
> Debian cheats and claims the GPL is happy with so-called "compatible"
> licenses, but that's not true: The GPL explicitely requires GPL. That
> means, Debian has licensing problems whenever they ship something that
> links to the libc or glibs (because it's not GPL, but LGPL) or - even
> worse! - whenever something links against X11, because Xlib is clearly
> neither GPL nor LGPL.
once again, you demonstrate your profound lack of understanding of the
GPL.
the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
with the operating system itself. This includes LGPL libraries
distributed with free operating systems, and it includes non-free
libraries distributed with non-free operating systems (e.g. win32 on
windows, motif on solaris)
i suggest that you read the GPL. It might prove instructive.
> But that is not the point. Debian sometimes is strict, sometimes
> not. They clearly treat KDE in a different way.
yes, we have granted KDE the benefit of the doubt for over a year while
trying to get you guys to do something about your licensing problems.
KDE has consistently failed to do anything at all to resolve these
problems. In fact, you have consistently refused to acknowledge that
there is a problem. There *IS* a problem, and pretending it doesn't
exist will not make it go away.
now we are treating KDE the same as we treat any other program with a
questionable license.
> Debian on the other hand does not want to encourage people to write
> more free software based on KDE. They probably dislike the basic idea
> of a user- and developer-friendly framework for linux on its own
> Combined with a commercial product they hate it so much, that they
> don't even want to encourage people to work on harmony (what they
> would do if they shipped KDE).
>
> What dissapoints me is that they cannot say this in public. If they
> said: "Debian does not want to encourage people to write software
> with the KDE libraries, so we remove the packages" they would at least
> be honest.
>
> But they are not honest. Instead, they claim that KDE has a "mess
> of a license" that forbids them to do what they would like to do:
> distributing it. This is such a childish excuse, even more since
> the KDE libraries do not contain any so-called 3rd party code at
> all. ("3rd party code", the word alone is a shame! Are we KDE
> Incorporated or a bunch of hackers writing free software?!).
your paranoid rant barely deserves a reply.
all i can say is that if you think we are bullshitting about the license
issue then CALL OUR BLUFF.
Fix what we claim are your license problems, what we are asking you to
do is add an explicit permission in your licenses to link to Qt. How
difficult can that be? The hardest part will be that you will have to
seek permission from some "upstream" authors whose code you have used.
if you fix all your license problems and debian still refuses to
distribute KDE binaries then you have proved your point and demonstrated
to the world that debian are a pack of bastards who are out to "get"
KDE.
if you fix your license problems and debian does distribute KDE binaries
then you are proven to be wrong, BUT on the bright side your software
gets more widely distributed and easier for users to install.
This is a WIN-WIN situation. You have nothing to lose by fixing your
license problems (except maybe a little temporary embarassment, which is
nowhere near as important as the software).
> Debian's claim is pointless. If it was not pointless they could at
> least come up with one single author of at least one single line of
> so-called 3rd party GPLed code in a KDE application who actually
> shares their opinion and states in public: "I do not want my line
> of code to be distributed as binary, that's why I put it under the
> GPL. Source is ok, though."
license permissions are exclusive, not inclusive. any permission not
explicitly granted is denied. this is the nature of software licenses
and copyright law.
what this means is that an author doesn't have to declare "no Qt
linking" any more than they have to declare "no illegal copying" or "no
stealing my work". These declarations are implicit in the copyright
itself.
Until an author of a GPLed work grants permission to link with Qt and
distribute the result, NOBODY (except the author) HAS ANY RIGHT TO DO
SO.
DISCLAIMER: i am a debian developer, but i am speaking for myself, not
debian.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: