[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Qt license change

On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 01:52:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I doubt that. Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 0.9:
> > > :3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve the
> > > :integrity of the unmodified version of the Software, modifications must be
> > > :distributed in the form of patches
> > > 
> > > This restriction looks incompatible with the GPL.
> Worse: since .deb files are currently not in the form of patches we
> can't distribute modified binaries without severely overhauling both
> dpkg and gcc.

I think that's a clarity issue.  I'm certain they meant "Software" as in
source above.  It's a point that needs clarifying though.  If you're trying
to argue that they intend this to mean binary patches too, you're the only
one so far who has looked at it that way, including at least one person who
works for Troll Tech.

> > That said, if we ship with Qt, I think we can get by on the GPL's
> > exception for system libraries:
> > 
> >    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
> >    not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
> >    or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
> >    on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
> >    that component itself accompanies the executable.
> That's kind of pointless since we couldn't, for example, let KDE
> accompany Qt.

It's beginning to look (as if it didn't from the last time this thread came
up) like you're nitpicking because you simply don't WANT Qt, KDE, or both to
exist.  You had a point above in that section 3 needs to be clarified to be
safe under the DFSG.  However if you continue to waste your good points on a
crusade against KDE, Qt, or both, nobody is going to listen to them for
long because they won't want to try to dig through the KDE must die crap to
get at real points.

FWIW, the system library exception should not be what allows KDE in main.  I
will argue VERY STRONGLY against that because if it was ambiguous before it
is STILL ambiguous now.  It's clear to almost all of us that Troll Tech is
trying.  They've managed (with exception to some need for clarification of
license in a place or two) to make their license DFSG compatible.  With the
exception of the above section 3, they have even made it more or less GPL

If we can, we should try to get them to soften that..  Would needing to
change the name or version or otherwise clearly mark a modded version as
such in a way the user will not mistake to distribute source patches already
applied be acceptable under the GPL?  We do allow that under the DFSG as
well as the current seperate patches thing, but if the clearly marked
version thing is more compatible with the GPL...

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgpJmyGcCoOb4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: