On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > Firstly I showed him a copy of the GPL: [...]
> > > and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL: [...]
> > > * He agreed the Andreas Pour's preferred interpretation [...]
> > This interpretation is: ``all terms of this license which specifically
> > apply to the added code'', which is ``terms 1 and 2 of the license'',
> > as opposed to ``all the terms of this license''.
> >
> > So Alice, say, can distribute KDE binaries, provided she also distributes
> > the complete source code (including Qt, we'll assume) under terms 1 and 2
> > (3a).
You'll note the `including Qt, we'll assume'.
You'll recall that this particular subthread was about `hey, but you can
distribute the Qt source code freely, so the GPL's satisfied anyway'. Not
about `but if you look at the *definition* of complete source, then Qt
doesn't have to be distributed anyway'.
> > Now if Bob receives a copy from Alice, Alice has specifically given
> > him permission (in term 2) to ``modify [his] copy [...] of the Program or
> > any portion of it [...] and copy and distribute such modifications or work
> > under the terms of section 1'',in which case he can modify and distribute
>
> > Qt (a porton of the complete source code Alice gave him)
>
> I think this is a sophism. My point all along has been that Qt is not part of
> the "Program".
Yes, your point. Not Don Sander's. Nor Don's copyright-lawyer-friend. In
particular, Don's friend didn't address whether Qt was likely to be
considered part of the `complete source' or not.
Note further that the `complete source' and `the Program' are distinct
entities, with different definitions in the GPL. Don't make the mistake
of equating them.
The Program is the source code you wrote; not libc, not Qt, not anything
else. Just the stuff you wrote. The work based on the program is an
executable, a modified source, or whatever. The complete source of the
Program is something else entirely.
Most of the rest of your analysis is completely irrelevent because
of this. No, Qt isn't the Program. No, it's not a derived work based
on the Program. But if it *is* part of the `complete source' (which is a
debate for the other thread) then under section 3, if you (Alice) aren't
allowed to give permission to Bob to distribute Qt under the terms of
section 2, then you don't have permission to distribute binaries at all.
You're also still using a right-margin of over 80 characters. That
makes it a pain to read (at least anywhere but at the kde-licensing
list archies). Please fix this. Around 75 characters is good, because
it keeps lines under 80 chars even after a couple of rounds of quoting.
> > as long as he:
> >
> > * adds prominent notices about his changes
> > * distributes it under terms 1 and 2 of the GPL
> > (under Andreas' interpretation people can't make binaries
> > based on his alterations)
> I haven't noticed this limitation.
You (Bob) weren't given permission to make binaries (which is section 3 of
the GPL, which wasn't one of the sections included when Alice gave Bob a
copy of her complete source code), therefore you don't have permission.
Sections 2 only gives you permission to distribute under the terms of
section 1, section 1 only gives you permission to distribute source code.
> > * makes it display a note when run interactively.
> > Unfortunately Alice doesn't have the right to give him this permission,
> > because she is only licensed to distribute Qt under the QPL, so Bob may
> > only ``make modifications to [Qt] and distribute [his] modifications,
> > in a form that is separate from [Qt]''.
>
> Again, if you read the GPL to require distributing all linked libraries licensed
> under the GPL, you run into big problems with XFree code, as well as BSD code
> (though in that case it is not quite as obvious as in the XFree case).
No, you don't. It's quite easy to satisfy the terms of the GPL and XFree
licenses concurrently (``is not.'' ``is too.''). Try it sometime. Get
some XFree86 code, get some GPLed code, enhance one with code from the
other, and work out some things you're permitted to do without violating
either license.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpzkjWGRXsvt.pgp
Description: PGP signature