Re: Heart of the debate
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> > all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> > this work the KDE application, I'm assuming I wrote all the stuff in
> > these files and own the copyright on them, I also assume this KDE
> > application uses QT). Section 0 of the GPL defines the Program to be
> > this work.
> >
> > There seems to be general agreement that using this definition of the
> > Program one can comply with sections 1 and 2 of the GPL.
>
> Oh?
>
> Section 2 of the GPL says that I can modify the program and
> redistribute it.
>
> Section 3b of the QPL says that I can't modify the program and
> redistribute it unless I grant Troll the right to relicense
> the code.
>
> It seems to me that Section 2 of the GPL allows some modifications to
> this KDE application which section 3c of the QPL does not allow me.
> And, from a legal point of view, I don't see any difference between this
> particular restriction and a restriction which would say that I have to
> pay Troll for each distributed copy. Neither case is distribution
> under the GPL terms.
If you define the work as I have then reading through the terms of the GPL
sequentially starting at Section 0, continuing on to Section 1 and then
proceeding to Section 2 I think we all agree that the terms of the GPL can be
satisfied.
It is not until Section 3 is reached where under your interpretation (but not
mine) the Program is redefined to be the complete source code that there is a
problem.
This is what I meant by there seems to be general agreement that using this
definition of the Program one can comply with sections 1 and 2 of the GPL.
Please continue reading the remainder of my explanation if you agree.
<quote>
Now I can distribute the complete source code to the Program (which
includes QT) under the terms of section 1 and 2 of the GPL as *I hold the
definition of the Program constant, so that QT is (still) not part of the
Program*, thus I still own the copyright to all of the Program and thus I can
still license my work under the terms of Section 1 and 2.
When distributing the complete source code under the terms of sections 1
and 2 any part of the complete source code that is not part of the Program (or
the Program's source code under Section 1++) is irrelevant.
Now you might say this is wrong as distributing the complete source code under
the terms of Section 1 and 2 requires applying terms of the GPL to the complete
source code (that is treating the complete source code to be the Program) but I
don't believe this as (amongst other things) a copyright lawyer told me this is
an incorrect interpretation of the phrase "the complete source code must be
distributed under the terms of Section 1 and 2" as found in Section 3.
<unquote>
> > Now I can distribute the complete source code to the Program (which
> > includes QT) under the terms of section 1 and 2 of the GPL as *I hold
> > the definition of the Program constant, so that QT is (still) not part
> > of the Program*, thus I still own the copyright to all of the Program
> > and thus I can still license my work under the terms of section 1 and
> > 2.
>
> I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> based on the Program".
Because it contains the Program yes.
> But if you're distributing a "work based on the Program", you must
> comply with section 6 of the GPL which states:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject
> to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
That's fine even when a work being based on the KDE application is being
redistributed (in this case the complete source code KDE + QT) the Program still
refers to the KDE application which does not include QT, and hence Section 6 is
complied with.
Raul, under my interpretation the value of the Program remains constant
thoughout the application of the terms of the GPL. Give it a go, try
interpreting the GPL this way, it makes things much simpler, and there are a
lot less contradictions.
> This is the clause that prevents commercial outfits from taking
> GPLed code, modifying it, and requiring a fee for further distribution
> of the source.
<aside>
Once my boss wanted the source code to some obscure GNU tools for MS-DOS that
he couldn't find on the net so he paid the FSF a reasonable amount of money in
order to obtain the source code.++ You can charge money for the source code,
it's just when you distribute the Program in object code or executable form
that you must make the source available at no more than the cost of physically
performing source distribution.
</aside>
Maybe what you meant to say is this is what stops commercial outfits from
taking GPLed application distributing binaries and then charging exorbitant
fees to obtain the source code. If it makes you feel better this remains true
under my interpretation of the GPL as Section 3 requires that when the object
code or executable form of the Program is distributed the complete source code
must be distributed at no more than the cost of physically performing the
source distribution.
> From a legal standpoint, however, the nature of
> the restriction isn't much of an issue. Requiring assignment of
> copyright has the same legal value as requiring a cash payment.
I think this point is rendered irrelevant by my answers above.
> > When distributing the complete source code under the terms of sections
> > 1 and 2 any part of the complete source code that is not part of
> > the Program (or the Program's source code under Section 1++) is
> > irrelevant.
>
> Except that the QPL doesn't allow you to distribute under the terms
> of Section 1 or 2.
I agree that one cannot license QPL code under the GPL, and it's irrelevant
because the definition of the Program remains constant. So that QT isn't part
of the Program or its' source code.
> > Now you might say this is wrong as distributing the complete source
> > code under the terms of Section 1 and 2 requires applying terms of the
> > GPL to the complete source code (that is treating the complete source
> > code to be the Program) but I don't believe this as (amongst other
> > things) a copyright lawyer told me this is an incorrect interpretation
> > of the phrase "the complete source code must be distributed under the
> > terms of Section 1 and 2".
>
> This concept is a non-issue in my opinion.
>
> The only cases where it could make a difference is where there are
> restrictions that prevent you from distributing under terms of sections
> 1 and/or 2.
This is very much an issue, because the different ways in which we interpret
this phrase lies at the heart of this entire debate. I hold the definition of
the Program constant throughout my reading of the license while you redefine it
in several places.
BFN,
Don.
++ shipping took 4 years, I don't recommend it if you live in Australia.
Reply to: