Re: KDE not in Debian?
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
> >
> > Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
> > rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or
> > "The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the GPL this is
> > required. But, alas, I have failed :-(. While I could respect your different
> > reading of the GPL, I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking with
> > XFree code but not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by
> > claiming that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went through
> > a thorough exercise of showing why this in fact can't be done (my post bearing
> > Message-ID <38955EF0.52C053CC@mieterra.com>), nobody has responded, perhaps b/c
> > you agree that I am right.
> >
> Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
> derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
> preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission.
The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any copies you
redistribute. I suppose you might argue there is no reason for that and we can
safely ignore that rather critical condition. In that case it is you that appears
not to listen.
> In particular, the XFree86 copyright notice's permissions only apply to (a)
> copies you get without another license, and (b) to the original work (not
> derivatives).
Wrong, it says you need to include the notice with any "substantial portion" of the
code. Notice that this license applies to each *file*, not the entire XFree build
tree. So including any substantial portion of any file (however much that is),
requires you to include their license. And since Debian redistributes basically all
of their files untouched, there is no question that Debian has to include the XFree
copyright notice and the XFree license (which is referred to as the "permission
notice").
> The fact that it permits copying of their code is a waiving
> (mostly) their copyright protections.
Wrong. Go learn about copyright law, then come back.
> It doesn't invalidate any
> other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't
> invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with
> sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable.
No it does not, and I have never claimed it does.You can license additions to XFree
code under your own license, and when someone distributes the combined work they have
to comply with the XFree license and your license. The XFree code, however, at all
times remains under the XFree license.
> Furthermore, it is
> perfectly legal to distribute the exact same expression under multiple
> copyright licenses.
For the author, sure. For a recipient under a particular license, absolutely not.
Otherwise I could take my MS Word and distribute it under the GPL, couldn't I?
> I don't have to "re-license" all currently existing
> versions of the code to comply with the GPL on a version that includes or
> is derivative of some GPL'ed work. I only have to distribute that version
> under the GPL.
What does that mean? You can't distribute any version of the XFree code (i.e., if
you copy a "substantial portion" of it) under the GPL, it remains under the XFree
code license.
>
> You should really either (a) consult a lawyer, (b) do some legal
> reading on IP/contract law/torts, and/or (c) take some law classes.
I can assure you that I don't need to, but thanks for asking. BTW, have you
considered doing these things?
> If you insist on continuing to debate what many of us consider obvious
> (e.g. that X licensed code may be redistributed under a proprietary
> license) then it would be best for you to post (in a relatively short way)
> your basic assumptions that are leading you to your conclusions. My wager
> is that we'll disagree with one of your assumptions, so maybe we'll get
> somewhere more fruitful (no guarantees though).
Well:
(a) copyright law prevents copying of protected works without permission from the
copyright holder;
(b) that permission to copy can be given in a document, whether it is called a
"license" or a "permission notice" or whatever, so long as in substance it permits
copying;
(c) if someone grants such permission, you can only copy in compliance with the
grant of permission;
(d) XFree grants permission to copy the code "subject to the following
conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
(e) The reference to "this permission notice" in the above quote is to the
license, called a "permission notice" in the XFree source code files, which permits
copying XFree in the first place.
(f) By requiring you to include the license in the XFree code you distribute,
that means that license applies to the XFree code (but not any additional code) which
you distribute.
(g) XFree code, or substantial portions thereof, can only be redistributed under
the XFree license.
(h) If someone adds code to XFree, they are free to license it under whatever
terms they choose, including a proprietary license, since XFree does not have any
requirements for code added to XFree by a third party.
(i) Point (h) above does not, however, change the license of the XFree code, it
only changes the permissions on the combined code. This is much like if I distirbute
a CD containing The Star Spangled Banner and music from Brittany Spears and Ricky
Martin. I can only do it if I have permission of the copyright holders of all works
(even though one work may be in the public domain and the others not), and, moreover,
the restrictive license on the BS and RM works does not place a restrictive license
on The Star Spangled Banner, which remains in the public domain.
Now, if you would be so kind as to explain in detail with which "assumption" you
disagree, we may be able to move forward.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: