On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 02:27:44PM +0200, Francesco Tapparo wrote:
> > You know something? While you're sitting here calling everyone involved
> > with the KDE project malicious thieves trying to subvert us and make free
> > software proprietary, SOME of us are trying to fix the problems,
> > including removing GPL code not written by the KDE team if an arrangement
> > with the authors of the code cannot be made.
>
> My point is that you are doing it in the wrong way: it is not going to solve
> the problem, and is going to weaken the licences of a increasing number of
> programs. I've explained my reasoning at the end of the letter, after my
> answer at your shouting.
YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You haven't seen the license. You have instead
made an assumption. Unless you're claiming that the QPL is a non-free
license, in which case I refer you to RMS who says otherwise.
> > This obviously isn't good enough for you, but it's quite obvious that
> > nothing short of a firing squad for everyone who has ever tried to do
> > anything with and for KDE (that would probably include me given that I
> > wrote the QPL) will satisfy you.
>
> I do'nt like KDE (but this is not probably a novelty to you, I suspect).
> I do'nt dislike TrollTech: they created a toolkit and the they put it under
> a proprietary licence. This is not of course athing I like particularly, but
> it is a thing common a lot of companies. Then they choose to put QT under a
> non-proprietary license, and this is something very good (I do'nt like their
> license, but it's a lot better than a proprietary licence).
The QPL is _NOT_ a proprietary license. Qt 1.x is under a proprietary
license. How long are you going to hold a grudge against them for making
their code free software in response to customer demand? What more do
you want? When will you ever be satisfied?
> But this has nothing to do with KDE: the only GPL'ed compatible licence is
> the GPL, so KDE has the same problems as before. Of course a world with a non
> proprietary QT is a better world than without, but this has nothing to do
> with KDE (the licences compatible under GPL are only the licences permitting
> to put the code under GPL).
>
> So do'nt worry: I do'nt care about you.
In the case of KDE, this is not what the authors want, therefore they
have a right to change their license. There may be pitfalls in doing so
(they can't just borrow GPL code at will anymore) but they can't do that
anyway because of the QPL. Until Troll Tech decides to GPL Qt (until
there is a GPL v3, this is not likely even an option) there is no other
way to accomplish what they want.
If that's not good enough and given that it's the only option, I must
concolde that NOTHING AT ALL that can be done will satisfy you, in which
case this discussion is at best pointless.
> BTW: you are overestimating the importance of your contribute to the QPL: of
> course you have obtained some concessions, but TrollTech had its agenda, and
> they conceded only what it fit in that agenda, nothing more. Joseph Carter or
> not Joseph Carter.
Let's see... They wrote a license, it was non-free. I re-wrote the
license and it was free. Gee, talk about insignificant contributions!
> > And while you are busy rebuking the foul demons of non-GPL software
> > (after all, any software that isn't GPL can never be free enough! In
> > fact Debian calling software under other licenses "free" makes Debian a
> > bunch of blasphemous heretics!) you neglect to see that some of the
> > strongest opponents to non-free software---namely Alan Cox and your
> > Messiah Richard Stallman have both said that while the QPL is not GPL
> > compatible, it _IS_ free software and the remaining compatibility issues
> > should be hashed out with the copyright holders of any significant
> > borrowed code.
>
> I do'nt have Messiahs: I think with my head. If the opinion of Alan
> Cox and RMS is that we should donate the code the KDE people use illegally,
> they are wrong, imho. I've explained my reasoning at the end of my letter.
You put words into my mouth---and theirs.
Richard said it would be necessary to contact the author of any GPL code
that was part of KDE not written by the KDE project and make licensing
arrangements with them. Alan said the same---and further said that with
Qt being free now, he would gladly make these arrangements for code he's
written. Nobody has ever suggested that KDE may ignore the license
attached to code, however to quote from the holy GPL:
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the
author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free
software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
"whose distribution conditions are different" == "not under the GPL". If
an individual who owns Copyright for a piece of code is not willing to
let the code be used under the terms required by the KDE project for
distribution, KDE cannot use that code. If they already _DO_ use it,
they need to remove it. Simple as that.
If however the Copyright holders have no objection to KDE's use of their
code, they may grant KDE permission to do whatever they want to grant KDE
permission to do and it is no longer a matter of law provided KDE uses
the code according to those terms. (ie, if the KDE team is granted
permission to use some GPL code with Qt and they use it with xforms, they
are in violation of the license they've agreed to..)
> So I summarize my point of view:
>
> If *you* work hard to solve the problem of the KDE people, you are curing
> the sympthom, not the cause. In doing that you are pressuring some people to
> donate some code to the KDE people, or grant them some rights they woul'nt
> be entitled to have. So you are solving the troubles *they* created.
> This is the first problem: your message (not only to other potential
> developers, but even to the lot of companies willing to earn in the linux
> market but frighten from sharing their code) is
Pressuring? Bah. We contact them and ask. If they don't like their
code being used with Qt, they say so and it will not get used or (if it
has already gotten used) be removed. Simple as that.
> Hey much of our code is GPL'ed, but if you link it against a more
> restrictive library (and if you have a lot of mindshare) we do'nt care;
> or, in the worst hypothesis, we work hard to solve your problem.
>
> This message can be very dangerous to the community.
Bah. I'm not going to play "My free license is better than yours!"
There are many free licenses out there and they all have a purpose. The
GPL is probably the most protective of them and I would hate to see
things like the Linux kernel under any other license. But not everything
must be GPL and if people are writing free software you bet I will be
happy to help them in any way I can! In the end when all software is
free and any software that isn't free is immediately suspect, none of
these licenses are likely going to matter all that much.
> Then there is the second problem: you are working on the symptom, not the
> cause. You keep to remove code and every day a new GPL-program linked
> against QT is created. The KDE project is growing very fast: you ca'nt keep
> the pace; but even if you would keep the pace, this would'nt sufficient: I
> think even you want a KDE stable (in the long run), not a project needing
> tweaks continuously (from the license point of view).
I'm writing KDE a new license for the code they write. If they wrote the
program, they can use whatever license they want. If they didn't write
the program, they have to start talking to the authors. You obviously
don't understand this.
> So the first to do something must be the KDE people: this is morally the
> right thing to do, and this is the only pratical thing to do.
> A very first step would be that the KDE people put a message in their web page
> and in linux-announce sayng that they are concious of their lincese problems,
> and are going to remove all the problematic code in the next major release
> (i.e. KDE 2.0, not KDE 1.1.x), and they are not going to accept new GPL'ed
> code (or code without a clear and not problematic license).
> This would be a clear message to the non-proprietary community and, more
> imortantly, to the KDE community.
> But if this do'nt happen, the best thing we can do is wait.
> This is the reason of my answer to you in my other email, about the wrong
> answer to the correct question: it's not important what is your license, the
> KDE people (at least all the major leaders) are not the more active players
> in the game.
I'm fixing a legal problem, not a moral one. Unlike some people, I don't
believe I have the right to judge others based on my morals. If it fits
the DFSG, is legal, and all the Copyright holders involved (be they the
KDE project or other people) are happy with the result, I will be too.
Actually the ultimate solution would be to GPL Qt. For half a dozen
reasons and more, that can't happen. At least not yet.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Kensey> RMS for President???
<RelDrgn> ...or ESR, he wants a new job ;)
Attachment:
pgpDcq85VIw_0.pgp
Description: PGP signature