Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
> 1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their
> patch, they will be able to make sure they can't, regardless of what
> any of us do.
I don't understand this. It is of course true that Qt cannot control the
license which anyone uses on their own work. But why can't they say, you may
not create a derivative work of Qt (or distribute it, of course) unless all of
the source code is licensed as follows . . . , which is essentially what the
GPL does. Thus, you can't control the license of the patch, but you can make
the patch utterly useless (i.e., nobody will be able to apply it to the Qt
source) unless it complies with the license you want it to have. And this
"required license" can have a provision giving the original copyright holder a
royalty-free license to use and distribute the patch. What am I missing?
[ ... ]
> 3. Code released under the QPL as a mod to Qt will be considered fair
> game for Troll Tech to be able to sell under their professional
> license. The user gets a promise that a free version will still be
> available in exchange for this. Troll Tech can incorporate your patch
> as long as the result is still available. It's more or less what
> Netscape wanted with Mozilla so it's not new.
>
This is a bit vague tro me -- "will be considered fair game"? This needs to be
clear -- if Troll Tech is wrong, all distributions of Qt will violate copyright
law and this will really hurt Qt (and Troll Tech). Obviously Qt will need to
have experienced copyright lawyers in the major countries look at this license
(hint, hint). There certainly should not be any cloud over whether or not
anything can be incorporated. This relates to the point above, about whether
or not one can control the licensing of the patch. Perhaps I am not reading
this right; my only point is that Qt *will* have to control the licensing of
patches so it can be sure it has a clean, enforceable license to distribute the
patch under its two licensing schemes.
One other point worth mentioning, over and over again, is that Qt needs
experienced legal counsel to draft its license. No offense intended, but your
comment that "You can't prevent use with a llicense, only distribution" (in
your draft qpl-mod-v3) is sheer nonsense, of course you can limit use with a
license (have you never seen the one-user vs. multiple-user/networked
licenses?), you can limit whatever you want, within certain bounds (think about
a license to see a soccer match -- can the stadium owners not control your
behavior while in the stadium?). Also, IMHO Qt cannot afford to have a license
as poorly drafted as the GPL, and I really hope that precedent of
debate/controversy-generating text is not repeated.
While the free software community can give Qt advice on the substantive points
to include in the license, I think it is a huge mistake to have computer
programmers draft legal agreements/licenses. Huge mistake. Huge.
Bye,
Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com
Reply to: