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
> > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> > 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...