Re: KDE not in Debian?
Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > So we must "cause the App and X sources to be licensed as a whole at no charge
> > to all third parties under the terms of this License". I've already commented
> > on the word "cause"; in the ordinary sense of "cause and effect" this is not
> > possible: as distributor, being author of neither X nor App, we have no say in
> > third party's rights to the App and X sources.
>
> Right, but you forget about Section 7 of the GPL. It says there that if for
> whatever reason -- including patent law -- you cannot comply with the GPL, you
> cannot redistribute/copy. Since you cannot cause it to happen, you can't
> redistribute: [...]
The part about complying is obvious, this is the base of everything I've been
saying. Yes, if you take "cause" to mean to take some action that achieves the
stated effect and without which that effect would not have been achieved, then
this is impossible, and the condition cannot be satisfied. But that would mean
it can NEVER be satisfied, because the "you" in 2b does not own full copyright
to the "work"; if he did there would be no need to abide by the GPL in the
first place. So yes I do give a non-obvious meaning to this phrase. I did
state that I was not happy with the formulation. Do you actually read what I
write? I only bend the meaning here because the more obvious reading makes no
sense: if the GPL is to contain conditions that can never be satisfied, it is
useless, and that was not its intention. So I am entitled to try a reading
that is maybe a bit less obvious, but which makes sense out of the GPL.
Besides, I wonder if my interpretation is so non-obvious. If by some chance I
run into the obligation to "cause the sun to rise in the morning", wouldn't a
judge find that I have fulfilled this obligation if in fact the sun did rise,
without requiring me to demonstrate that I could have done anything to prevent
it? Really this is all I've done, replaced a causal relationship by just a
verication that the required effect does indeed take place.
> > But those rights being fixed,
> > we may check whether third parties do in fact receive the licence formulated
> > in the GPL. For the App sources this is clear; for the X sources third parties
> > in fact have licence to do anything the X licence permits, but since this
> > includes all permissions given in the GPL, and not with stricter conditions,
> > we may conclude that third parties receive full GPL licence with respect to
> > the complete sources, and condition 2b is satisfied.
>
> Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL, and
> not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third parties receive full
> GPL [license] with respect to the complete sources".
As I have made abundantly clear I interprete the verb "license" as "giving
permission under conditions" and the noun "licence" as "conditional
permission" (I've even tried to maintain the conventional British difference
in orthography, but this subtlety was probably wasted on you); just to be
clear I've also added "(permission)" after "licence" at key points. The upshot
is that I can give you a particular licence (permission) implicitly by in fact
giving you a broader licence (permission). This is were the "no stricter"
comes from, not from any particular words in any licence. So if I give you
permission (license you) to distribute under the conditions of the X licence,
I implicitly give you permission (licence you) to distrubute it under the
stricter conditions of the GPL.
> First of all, they do not in fact receive a full GPL license; if that were the
> case, then they would not be able to make a binary-only distribution of the X
> code which is distributed as part of the package, which they can under the X
> license (which you agreed applies to the X code).
How can having permission to do something (make binary-only distribution)
prove I did not receive some other permission (full GPL)?
> As I see it, the phrase "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of this License" can have only two possible meanings. One is,
> the whole must be licensed completely under the GPL. We both agree that does not
> work with XFree code.
OK you've managed to completely piss me off. I won't reply to or even read
your messages any more, don't bother even to write them. I've spent some
considerable time to give a very detailed description of how I read that
phrase, and you elect to completely ignore that and just stick to your two
readings of which the second is so absurd that I can't even start to
understand it.
> The other is, only the terms that apply explicitly to the entire whole apply to
> the "added" code. One of those terms is in Section 2(b), which requires
> distribution of the whole "at no charge to all third parties".
Not "distribution at no charge", not even the GPL requires that. "Being
licensed (obtaining permission) at no charge". You are not allowed to require
payment for giving permission (as you might if you own part of the copyright).
Read. It's not difficult. Even by children can learn it. Just take your time.
> All of this would be pertinent if somehow the GPL distinguished between "more
> restrictive" and "less restrictive", which it does not.
Because it is implicit in the meaning of giving permission. Period.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Reply to: