Here's aj's reply... -- NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rusty.Russell@rustcorp.com.au, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1
- From: Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 03:09:23 +1000
- Message-id: <19981228030923.B21093@azure.humbug.org.au>
- Mail-followup-to: Joseph Carter <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Richard Stallman <email@example.com>, Rusty.Russell@rustcorp.com.au, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <19981227061641.A16043@debian.org>; from Joseph Carter on Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:16:42AM -0800
- References: <19981227061641.A16043@debian.org>(short summary: I don't have any real complaints (but I'm not Trolltech), so if you're not interested in legal nitpicking from someone who's not even a lawyer, skip this message.) On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:16:42AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: > THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 0.92+knghtbrd1 > Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway. > Everyone is permitted to copy and > distribute this license document. (and base new licenses upon it? ;) > c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with this > license. To my reading, this sentence doesn't make sense -- you seem to be saying that the license's license has to be QPL. Is this meant to mean ``Modifications must be licensed under the QPL'' or ``Modifications must be licensed under a license no more restrictive than the QPL'' or ``...no less restrictive than the QPL'' or...? It would seem better to separate this clause into ``Modifications may be made and distributed under the QPL'' and something along the lines of ``The copyright holder (that's trolltech) is granted permission to rerelease the Software (that's anything under the QPL in particular modified versions of Qt) under alternate terms of their choosing.'' Probably with a note that adds that such rereleasing doesn't invalidate the current license (ie the QPL itself). If people want to play nice with trolltech, they just leave the QPL intact. If not, they can then use section 7 to distribute it under the GPL. > 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. > > # [ Is this necessary? In my outline of the changes I planned to make to > # v.92 I asked that. I believe that it is not unreasonable and does not > # cause any real harm or otherwise cause the software not to be free under > # any definition I can think of, including the DFSG. And besides, I think > # it's a good idea to say something like it anyway. ] > > > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other > software items that link with the original or modified versions of the > Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following > requirements: These two items are confusing when separated like this -- you go ``Huh? Didn't I just read that?'' Well, I do anyway. Could they be merged, or the difference (use v distribution) be put a little earlier in the sentence? > a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms > of these items are also able to receive and use the complete > machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond > the costs of data transfer. A note as to what "source code" means (as per in the GPL) would probably be good here. > b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use > and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in > both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must > be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be > able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. This isn't equivalent to requiring Open Source -- you can, for example, disallow people to charge any money at all for distributing your program, and still link with Qt according to this. That's probably quite reasonable though. If it's not, something along the lines of ``Such software must be made available under a license conforming to the Open Source Definition'' might be usable. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---