Heart of the debate
I would like to address an issue that I feel is at the heart of the debate
about the legality of distributing KDE.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Section 3 of the GPL states:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
>
> [b and c aren't interesting since they merely give options for how
> the source code is distributed -- the terms remain the same].
>
> Note that this requires that terms of the GPL be applied to the
> distribution of the complete source code.
>
> Section 0 of the GPL states:
>
> 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
> a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
> refers to any such program or work, ...
>
> Since terms of the GPL are applied to the distribution of the complete
> source code, this means that that complete source code is an example of
> what the GPL calls a "Program". [And the sentence I chopped off goes
> on to emphasize that this is really the case for works derived from
> GPLed works.]
Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code .. must
be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean or at least
imply "the complete source code must be distributed by applying Sections 1 and
2 to the complete source code"++, (here I use apply in the same sense Section
0 does).
In everyday speech these two statements could be used interchangably, but in
copyright law they mean vastly different things. I think Andreas has been
trying to make this point for awhile now. I personally didn't just accept
Andreas' word that these phrases mean different things, I consulted a
copyright lawyer and he confirmed this. He clearly stated that "the complete
source code must be distributed under the terms of this license" does not mean
(or even imply that) "in order to distribute the complete source code you must
apply the terms of this license to the complete source code" (and again I use
the word apply in the same sense Section 0 does).
Even if they did mean they same thing I fail to see why the GPL would be
drafted in such a convoluted way. The same effect could be achieved by simply
defining the Program to be the complete source code in Section 0. (Because if
you interpret "under the terms" to mean "apply the terms" once you apply
Sections 1 and 2 to the complete source you effectively apply all the terms
through 2b).
Finally interpreting the phrase "the complete source code must be distributed
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" to mean "holding the value of the
Program defined in Section 0 constant the complete source code must be
distributed under the terms of Section 1 and 2" as I and I think Andreas does
makes good sense. Consider that the GPL defines the conditions under which a
work (or derivative work) can be distributed in source code form, now Section
3 stipulates that the source code may be distributed, hence it makes good
sense to make sure that such distribution is only allowed under the same
terms as found elsewhere in the license, namely Sections 1 and 2.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
BFN,
Don.
++ If I understand your logic for why one can't apply the GPL to a KDE app is:
Consider applying the GPL to a KDE app that uses QT. In order to apply
the GPL Section 3 of the GPL must be satisfied. Section 3 of the GPL requires a
distributor to be able to distribute the complete source code under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2. This is equivalent to (or at least implies) that one must
apply Sections 1 and 2 of the GPL to the complete source code.
Now since sections of the GPL are being applied, one must define the value of
the Program used in Sections 1 and 2 for the scope of this application. Since
Sections 1 and 2 are being applied to the complete source code, the work the
GPL is being applied to is the complete source code, and for the scope of this
application the Program is the complete source code.
Now QT is part of the Program as QT is part of the complete source code.
Furthermore the QT license imposes restrictions that conflict with Sections 1
and 2, (modifications must be made in a form that is seperate from QT for
instance).
Thus it is not possible to apply Sections 1 and 2 to the complete source, hence
when attempting to apply the GPL to a KDE app Section 3 cannot be satisfied,
hence the GPL cannot be applied to a KDE app.
(Obviously I disagree witht this logic, but at least I want to show I am at
least trying to understand you).
Reply to: