[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL link against non-free in original work (Re: Isn't a kde version..)

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
>     This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>     under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
>     Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
>     option) any later version. Additionally, you are granted permission to
>     assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or
>     executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General Public License, that
>     the XForms library (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars)
>     is normally distributed with the major components of the
>     operating system on which the executable or object code runs.
>     This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>     GNU General Public License for more details.
>     You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>     along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
>     Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307 USA

That won't work.  The additional permission granted doesn't help us,
since we also distribute Qt itself.  (Read paragraph 3 of the GPL:
"... unless that component itself accompanies the executable").

Try something like,

  "Additionally, the source code of the Qt library is specifically
exempted from being considered part of the source code for this
program under Section 3 of the GNU General Public License."

This is still incomplete, since you don't specify *which* Qt library.
The one distributed by Troll Tech?  That's rather limiting, and I'd
consider the resulting program non-free, since for example we wouldn't
be able to link it with a Qt that was modified to fix bugs.  If you allow
more, how much more?  This could easily open up a loophole in the GPL.
Perhaps you'd be better off with the MIT license in the first place.

Richard Braakman

Reply to: