Re: Qt Freed!

[David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
><damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: 
>> jim@jimpick.com:
>>>http://www.troll.no/
>>>:-)
>>>(Of course, I have doubts whether or not it is compatible with the GPL
>> Qt not freed. It's not compatible with the DFSG/ Open Source Definition,
>> It might be good enough to get Qt into nonfree and KDE into contrib,
>> though.
>Since the consensus here is that it *is* DFSG compliance, would you like to
>point as at the conflict?

>From the QPL:
   6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
   software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
   Software under the following restrictions:
     
     a. You make your items available in machine-readable source code
     form free of charge to all users of those items. You may charge a
     reasonable fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.
     
     b. You explicitly permit users of your items to freely modify the
     source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices,
     attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute
     original or modified versions of the items.

     c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
     programs, reusable components and other software items that link
     with the original or modified versions of the Software under the
     Artistic license or any GPL license.

Additionally, if you produce a patch, it must be;
     b. The patch must be explicitly licensed by the following clauses
     without additional restriction:
     Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
     obtaining a copy of this patch, to deal in the patch without
     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
     modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
     of the patch, subject to the following conditions: Any copyright
     notice and this permission notice must be included in all copies or
     substantial portions of the patch.

>From the DFSG:
    3. Derived Works
       The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
       allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
       of the original software.

Now the QPL implies that 'application programs, reusable components and
other software items that link with the original or modified versions
of [Qt]' cannot be distributed under the QPL; but surely they are
'derived works'? Also, surely a patch constitutes part of a
'modification', and you can't QPL them, either.

I have no idea why Eric Raymond considers this not a violation of the
Open Source Definition.

-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell, damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk.  All Hail Discordia!
|   | And then they came and took me out, The men of doom and malice:  |   |
|---|Destroyed my life, removed my sense, Gave me the poisoned chalice.|---|
| | | My betrayal's life to me...                Elder Sign: Treachery | | |