On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 12:23:58PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
>
> > 2. The QPL is DFSG free but NOT GPL compatible.
>
> I bet on this one.
So do I.
> > If 2, the question the becomes: Is the GPL's "distributed as a normal part
> > of the operating system" clause enough to allow GPL code to like the DFSG
> > free but not quite GPL compatible QPL licensed Qt? I really _REALLY_ do not
> > want to resort to answering that question. If at all possible I would much
> > prefer that we figure out what the problems are with GPL compatibility and
> > ask Troll Tech to address these issues.
>
> The only way Troll Tech can do anything is to use GPL. I don't believe
> that they want to do that. GPL states clearly that it should be GPL or
> a part of the OS.
I don't mean to be as rude as this sounds but: You're wrong, and you're
wrong in a way that REALLY REALLY REALLY annoys me.
Tell me, why do we have GPL programs that use libxpm, or even xlib?
libxpm and xlib X licensed, not GPL. So why do we allow them in main?
Because the X license is compatible with the GPL. It's only as restrictive
or less restrictive than the GPL, and therefore it's okay to link the GPL to
X licensed code. That's REASONABLE. Saying anything else makes every GPL X
program out there need to be tossed out of Debian. While a few of us CLI
people would not complain TOO loudly, it would not be reasonable to take
such a stance when the GPL doesn't say we have to.
If the GPL ever DOES say we have to, I will say the GPL is broken badly.
Here is what it does say, this is section 6:
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. You may not impose any further restrictions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Essentially, that means you can have parts of the programs with LESS
restrictions, but not more, unless they fit the part of section 3 which
allows for the "major components" and whatnot to be exempt.
QPL section 6 has been an issue, though the GPL is actually more
restrictive in section 3(b):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
Interesting, that. So that part of the QPL is more liberal than the GPL,
though the GPL's more restrictive license would apply to the work as a
whole.
The only CONFLICT is in QPL section 3 which we have seen posted to the list
before which says that patches must be distributed AS patches. This
restriction is not found in the GPL and it is therefore an additional
restriction and not compatible. If it is changed to require that the
changed files be prominently marked or some other kind of marking that the
work is derivative (the GPL itself tells you to mark changed stuff as
changed, so such a requirement would probably be workable with the GPL
unless you're Raul who I'm almost certain won't be happy till it's pure GPL,
but..)
If someone else has another interpretation and wants to point out specific
references to where my interpretation is incorrect, please do so.
> Is it posible to get the KDE people stick an execption[0] to the GPL on
> all the core KDE? Then we could have the core of KDE in main!
>
> That leaves the code borrowed for KDE frontends a such things outside
> of Debian.
That's the same issue we had when Qt was non-free isn't it? Not very
reasonable, though I was (slowly) trying to get permission for the ported
apps to use GPL+"you can use this with Qt regardless of whether the GPL
would normally allow usage of Qt in your case or not." We agreed this was
the hard way and we agreed that a free Qt replacement (or a free Qt) would
be a better solution.
We have a free Qt now and the chance to make it free and GPL compatible, the
folks at Troll Tech are willing to listen to requests if they would REALLY
help Qt be more acceptable to everyone. Changing section 3 of the QPL is
all I can see that is needed.
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpEXhRiyRAxA.pgp
Description: PGP signature