Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
> Here's where I am headed (another outline):
>
> 1. This license applies if you distribute Qt.
> 2. You may distribute unmodified copies.
> 3. You may distribute modified copies if:
> a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
> b. Your mods are distinguishable from the original source. Pretty
> much defining this the way the GPL does along with Troll Tech's
> preferences for mods as patches when reaonable.
> c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls
> can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let
> them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is
> always a free software version of Qt.
The only point I would take issue with is this one. I don't see why the license
can't say, if Qt does not have a world-wide, royalty-free license to redistribute
the mods under its two (or more -- more might be needed later b/c of the various
open source licenses proliferating these days) licenses, you can't distribute them
along with Qt source code; and Qt would agree to keep the two (or more) edititons
in sync so they can't cherry-pick mods. Anything else is unfair to TT, and
I can't see how anyone can complain about this.
> 4. You may distribute binaries if:
> a. You include the license
> b. People can get the source
> 5. You may use Qt with anything legally developed
> 6. You may develop Qt-using software if:
> a. People can get the source code
> b. Free redistribution is allowed
>
> 3(c) in my changes (it was 3(c) to start, then it was 3(b) after I
> changed it, now I change it back---hey people, check it out! Musical
> license clauses! <g>) needs some real effort I think. It's really the
> hard part. It's easy to get people to follow it, I just have to write
> it. => If you've got any suggestions I wouldn't mind hearing them.
>
> Also, the question as to whether 5 needs to be in there at all has come
> up, but I think it does need to be there. I think it does, the actual
> language is and would remain:
>
> 5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
> compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
> by others.
Well, it's not just legally *developed*, it also must be legally *distributed*,
no? Someone can develop using Qt Free Edition legally, but then if
they distribute under a restricted license they have still legally developed but
illegally (in violation of QPL) distributed.
But in the end, this is a pointless provision, no way TT will sue someone for
*using* a Qt library b/c someone distributed it in violation of Qt licenses (since
use is not limited by Qt license you could run afoul of 5 only if someone up the
chain did something wrong). Also, a user would probably not know whether or not
the program was "legally developed", how is someone to know this? Why not stick
to distribution restrictions?
[ ... ]
Regards,
Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com
Reply to: