Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:13:43AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> 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.
We aren't, perhaps, spreading a little anti-GPL FUD now, are we?
Most licenses are at least a little bit confusing; they're legal
documents, after all. I liked the old Borland No-Nonsense License
they used to use (from the clarity point of view, I mean). The GPL
strikes me as a good attempt to be at least as clear; considering the
new legal ground it breaks, it's a testament to the quality of its
drafters that it isn't more confusing than it is.
Want to read some confusing legal language? Go read a Microsoft
EULA.
> 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?
Let's see...
> I am not violating section 1, although
> further sections may pertain to modifified gv code.
So far, so good. Very clear, I might add. "You may do this, and
this, and this."
> 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.
True. However, the BSD license allows relicensing (sort of), as long
as its terms are respected. So, technically, those BSD files are
GPLed when distributed with the GPLed project, as the GPL requires.
BSD (at least the new one) doesn't enforce any restrictions beyond the
GPL, so you're OK with this one.
> 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.
Not Qt! Qt is still under the QPL, not the GPL, and there is no way
to "mesh" the requirements of the QPL and the GPL coherently.
> Section 3 allows me to distribute
> binaries of kgv, if I follow sections 1 and 2.
Since you aren't following section 2, you can't distribute binaries.
> I am making available the
> complete source code for kgv as well as Qt.
Irrelevant - you still haven't followed section 2.
> 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.
Yes, there are. You have incorporated Qt into the work (based on your
own admission above). Thus, your "work based on the Program"
(expressly mentioned in section 6) incorporates code with restrictions
beyond the GPL - namely, certain restrictions in the QPL.
> If this were not the case,
> then no GPL code could be linked to motif, regardless of what section 3
> says.
"Linking" is an OS-specific action, so it must be looked at in the
context of the OS in question.
Motif is a component on every Solaris system. Therefore, you don't
have to distribute Motif source code, binaries, dynamic libraries, or
whatever with your GPLed Motif program, since they are provided with
every Solaris system. Thus, you can link a GPLed program to Motif on
Solaris, since Solaris users wanting to use your binary can use it
without having to download Motif, and people wanting to recompile it
can link with the Solaris-provided Motif libraries. This is
specifically allowed by section 3. However, Sun isn't allowed to
integrate your app into Solaris; this would nullify section 3.
On Debian, it's a different matter. Motif is not a system component
of Debian, and therefore section 3 does not apply. I would assert
that, therefore, it isn't possible to distribute binaries of GPLed
Motif apps for Debian.
[All of this, of course, presupposes that Lesstif doesn't exist.]
> 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.
Except that (for example) the GPL does not restrict your right to make
modifications that you keep for your own private use only, while the
QPL requires you to release anything you do based on Qt Free Edition
to Troll Tech upon request.
Therefore, I can take kgv and make it foo bars, which it normally
doesn't do; this change, let's say, only requires a change to the
(k)gv side, not to Qt. I can decide not to give my modified copy to
anyone. But if someone at Troll hears about what I've done, they can
demand a copy, and I must comply.
Let's say that I make this change to the regular gv first, under the
(correct) impression that I can keep it to myself. Let's say that I
later apply the patch to kgv because I'm using KDE now, and the patch
cleanly applies without modification. Now Troll Tech hears about it
and demands a copy. Must I comply? Nothing in my patch is at all
specific to Qt; it only depends on GPLed code, and I am following the
GPL whenever I distribute my modified version (which is never). But,
it is linked to Qt, and Troll Tech requires that you give them a copy
as a condition to linking the code to Qt, despite whatever assurances
the GPL gives to me.
This is an added restriction beyond the GPL, which clearly violates
section 6.
> > 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.
As long as we're all slamming on each other here, and calling each
other "moronic idiots", and "outrageous", and slurring on each other's
manners...
This controversy was created by people in one of two situations:
- muddle-headed thinkers, who would yell like crazy about sloppy code
yet see no reason to apply any effort to legal coherence, or
- people with an agenda, who don't like what the GPL stands for, and
who contort themselves into pretzels to squeeze out of a relatively
clear legal document they've agreed to once but no longer agree with.
Troll would not like it very much if I took Qt Free, made some trivial
modifications to it, and released it under the GPL. (Otherwise, they
would have done it, right?) So why is it that we are not allowed to
be angry because people take our GPLed code, make a few trivial
changes, and release it under some other, more restrictive license?
Do we as authors have any rights, or is it only corporations that have
rights?
Reply to: