Re: KDE - license issue
Joel Klecker writes:
> At 09:46 -0400 1999-08-24, Kristopher Johnson wrote:
> >There is a lot of GPL-licensed software out there that depends
> >upon X. I don't think that anyone requires those packages to be
> >accompanied by a GPL-ed X implementation. So, it appears that X
> >is considered to be a "major component" for purposes of the GPL.
>
> No it's not, the X license and the GPL are compatible. Thus the
> exception does not come into play.
> [...]
I didn't browse the sources, but looking at
/usr/doc/X11/copyright, or /usr/doc/xlib6g/copyright
(in slink), you can see (among other copyright notices):
------------------------------
2.2.2. UCB/LBL
Copyright (c) 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All
rights reserved.
[...]
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes
software developed by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
[...]
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgement: This
product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
--------------------------------
I guess this (at least) could be incompatible with GPL:
--------------------------------
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
[...]
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.
----------------------------------
If linking against X11 makes, for instance, XEmacs+X11 a
derived work, you could not redistribute it, since it should be coverd
by GPL, but cannot, since parts of X11 seem to be covered by BSDL,
and BSDL imposes an additional condition (specifications regarding
advertising material) on those stated by GPL. The sentence "You may
not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
the rights granted herein" is the "tricky" one.
Probably I'm missing something, but BSD+GPL seems similar to
QtL+GPL (with respect to incompatibility)
Jesus.
--
Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona | Departamento de Informatica
tel +3491 624 9458, fax +3491 624 9129 | Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
jgb@gsyc.inf.uc3m.es, jgb@computer.org | avd. Universidad, 30
Grupo de Sistemas y Comunicaciones | 28911 Leganes, Spain
Reply to: