On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 03:25:52AM -0600, Andreas Pour wrote: > > The GPL talks about it as a modified version of the program. I'm talking > > about a patch file. At that point, they are two seperate works. (Some > > people disagree with this, but they were the people saying KDE source code > > can't be distributed because it was written so that it worked with Qt.. > > They were wrong then and now) They are seperate works until they are > > combined. > > I realize that; my more specific point is that if the Qt license says you > cannot combine this code with any other code to create a derivative work > unless that other code is licensed so-and-so, then no on could ever use > code that is not so-and-so; or, you could say. While people could create > patch files that weren't licensed so-and-so, but what would be the point > if nobody can use it (well, sure, there is the fair use exception, but > that is only per user, you could still control distribution). Sure they could. But the restrictions on doing so are rather inconvenient. Why would someone do so? Why indeed! That's the point. Getting around it is difficult. Almost everyone (I hesitate to say everyone because there's always one id^H^Hperson out there who is going to not) will release their Qt mods under the QPL. Why would they? Why wouldn't they? It's a very open license, it's got nothing in it not found in the GPL other than Troll Tech's desire to stay in business and of course nobody minds that. In fact, the GPL fanatics out there should be HAPPY with the QPL because the only people it's not free to are those writing non-free software. Let them pay for using Qt, the QPL lets us do everything it lets them do--just that we have to do it with Free Software. I can't think of a single user or coder out there who minds that. (They do exist, I'm sure. I just don't know who they are.) > > Troll Tech is allowed to license the code however they wish if the mod is > > QPL licensed. I explain that down just a bit.. (the license was clearer > > than my explanation I think) > > Yeah, but why would anyone license their patch that way? There appears to be no > incentive, is there? The obvious incentive is that the only way to get your patch in the next version is to license it that way, or license it some other way and give Troll the same permission the QPL does.. (X or BSDish licenses would do the same as QPL in this case) The compromise I put in there for those who would say Troll Tech just wants us to make their lib good then they'll make it non-free again is that in order to accept a patch that is QPL'd, Troll Tech agrees to release a free version as well as any non-free version. Of course they are going to do that anyway, but. It all boils down to that Troll Tech asking for you to license things so they can use them upstream is not an unreasonable request. Netscape asked for it with Mozilla and I can't think of a single patch to Mozilla which is not N/MPL, though many of them are both GPL and N/MPL for the sake of making the authors feel better. > > You can't. Note the GPL and other free licenses don't describe use, only > > distribution. That's what Copyright is. Applying patches and the like for > > your own personal use is considered "fair use" provided you obtained the > > original legally. > > The "fair use" doctrine is quite varied and complex. Understatement of the century... > However, I think it applies principally to making copies of a work "for > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including > multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", not for > general use, and in any event I am not at all sure it permits you to > create derivative works. Just b/c the GPL does not govern use does not > mean use is exempt from copyright law. Do you think you can take a song > you like and broadcast it on a radio frequency? That's only a "use", > right? Well, that's a "use" that violates copyright law. No, broadcasting a song is distribution. Playing it is not. Of course, playing it REAL LOUD so the whole neighborhood can hear it is probably still just using it, but I'm sure if you had enough money the record company's lawyers would have you sued for Copyright infringement. => On a side note, the record companies are trying to make it illegal to make an mp3 file of a track on a CD you own. But that's fair use isn't it? Well yes, but so is dubbing a CD on to a cassette and they've been trying to ban that for years. > > Many people have said that shrinkwrap licenses on the vast majority of > > non-free software are illegal, point is that usually these companies are US > > based and in the US whether or not you win in court is directly proportional > > to how well you pay your lawyers and how many you have. You vs. Microsoft, > > who is going to win? > > Clearly there is uncertainty in many areas of copyright law. I think that's quite intentional. My above example of you taking on M$ is a good reason why it's worded so badly. Do I honestly believe this? Of course, expecially in the US. US Copyright law has NO provision even for releasing a work under public domain. You just have to assume when they say it's public domain you are licensed to use it as if it were public domain, but in the end they still hold Copyright! If you think that's stupid, well you're right. => > > I'm not completely ignorant of Copyright law... I was actually considering > > seriously at one point going into law and specializing in computer-related > > law. People talked me out of it, no money in it they said. Do you know how > > much computer law specialists MAKE these days?? FWIW, one of the people who > > is looking over the license is a 3rd year law student. Hopefully he'll have > > some constructive thoughts on it. Said he'd probably take a few days doing > > a little bit of research on the matter so he can make an informed opinion. > > Pleeease. Tell me you are joking. That I almost went into it, that they make more than I'm ever likely to, or that there's a law student interested in the discussion who is going to over the next few days hopefully find some constructive comments about the license? > > I don't know about you, but I'm anxious to hear what he says. He may not be > > a lawyer yet, but he's the closest thing I can find and he's willing to > > provide his opinion without being handed a large sum of money. Perhaps he > > may not be a lawyer, but he's doing his homework with it (quite literally I > > suppose) and if he comes back with a serious correction, there will be a v4 > > I promise. This proposal may be nearly complete or very incomplete. I > > haven't proposed it yet because I'm not done with it yet. It's here for > > people's opinions. I've noted yours and am considering it. > > Well, all I can say is, if Troll Tech relies on a 3d year law student on advice for > drafting the license that will govern their principal product, then, well, as the > saying goes, "You get what you pay for." In the end the best we can do is provide our opinions. The opinion of someone who can actually research the license in comparison with the Copyright law is better than my opinion or your opinion or anyone else's around here. A lawyer wrote the GPL with RMS and we know what it looks like. -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpvGbI7P4PND.pgp
Description: PGP signature