[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..)

On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 02:59:35PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> 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.
> > 

I suggested a similarly worded license a while back and then noticed a
problem -- it doesn't allow code from the program to be reused in another
program distributed under the standard GPL. 

> >     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."

Don't forget the _option_ of using the standard GPL so the license can
revert if someone rips out all the Qt stuff for GTK--. 

> 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.

Sigh.. Incompatible licenses...

Brian Ristuccia

Reply to: