Re: KDE not in Debian?
Andreas Pour wrote:
> > ie, the "major components" argument is moot because Caldera and Corel
> > distribute Qt _AND_ KDE. The second they distribute them both together (I
> > would argue in the same box, the same distribution directory of an ftp
> > site, etc) they are distributing them together.
>
> Right, but they *do* distribute the source code to Qt.
Which is the key to the whole thing. Although the Artistic License has
been maligned for being vague, I contend that the GPL is vague and
confusing in its own way. Clause xxx will grant a specific right and a
later clause yyy will clarify it, and yet clause zzz still further on
adds restrictions. Just as the AL is vague when you take clauses out of
context, so is the GPL. Yet this is precisely what every license
argument on these lists does, take a clause out of context.
The GPL is too large and convoluted for many people to grasp the whole
as a single concept. Therefore, a good tactic to determine legality is
to create a scenario that can be grasped and go through the GPL clause
by clause to see if anything in particular is violated.
As a case in point, imagine a scenario where I take the GPLd gv program,
modify it with additional GPL code, dynamically link it to Qt, and call
the whole kgv. If I ( or someone else) subsequently distributes this
program, am I violating the GPL? I am not violating section 1, although
further sections may pertain to modifified gv code. Section 2 deals with
this modification. Subsection 2c talks about licensing as a "whole".
This section does not require each individual source file to be GPLd.
Evidence of this can be seen in the occasional BSDL file in the GNU and
Linux source trees. But, for the sake of argument, I am distributing Qt
as part of the whole. So I have to make the distribution "as a whole" be
under the GPL. I have done so. Section 3 allows me to distribute
binaries of kgv, if I follow sections 1 and 2. I am making available the
complete source code for kgv as well as Qt. And finally, section 6
requires me to sublicense kgv under the GPL to anyone I give it to. I
have not changed the license, so I am not in violation. However, sec6
also says I can't add any restrictions to the gv code. I contend that I
have not done so. There are no further restrictions on ANY of gv's code
or on any of its code that I have modified. If this were not the case,
then no GPL code could be linked to motif, regardless of what section 3
says. I've overlooked some paragraphs and clauses, but that because this
example is getting too long as it is...
As I see it, there are no sections of the gv or kgv licenses that are
violated by distributing kgv. Everyone is free to copy, distribute and
modify kgv, and the source code for all of it and its modules are
present.
> Hmmm, as I read this thread it seems you think everyone that disagrees with
> you is a moronic idiot ;-).
That's how a lot people behave on a mailing list. Such behavior would be
outrageous face to face. But because the other person is faceless and
anonymous, you rarely feel the moral urges that would otherwise cause
you to hold your tongue. Although I disagree with RMS on a wide range of
topics, he is the model of decorum and good manners on the mailing
lists, and sets a proper example of net behavior.
David Johnson
Reply to: