Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:01:49AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:04:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [discussing the concept that some people call "viral"]
> > > I think you're referring to the GPL property I think of as transitive
> > > rights. [As in "transitive closure", not "transitive verb".]
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:34:47AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > Aren't the restrictions transitive as well? IANAL...
>
> Copyright law defaults to complete restriction. Licenses grant rights
> ("copy" rights) to others. Thus restrictions simply a failure to grant
> certain rights.
>
> So restrictions are always transitive: you can't grant a right that you
> don't have.
>
> The GPL is somewhat unique in that it makes any extra restriction
> equivalent to complete restriction. Where most copyrights allow
> redistribution under more limited rights, the GPL does not.
>
> Thus, the GPL is about as close as you can get to restrictions not
> being transitive.
>
Thank you :)
> > > The QPL *requires* that you allow the original author to re-release
> > > it under any other license that the original author chooses. This
> > > can be as proprietary or restrictive as the original author chooses.
> > > Needless to say, if you don't have the authority to grant this kind
> > > of copyright you can't incorporate someone else's code into a QPL
> > > mod. [And this is the biggest conflict between the QPL and the GPL.]
> >
> > Hmm. Reusing code between different licenses is not the issue... There
> > are many compatibility problems between licenses. But not even to be
> > able to reuse code between software that use the same license seems
> > problematic to me. You are right *hit forhead with palm*, the QPL is
> > not a Free license because it does not allow code reuse. It is strange
> > that DFSG does not mention code reuse anywhere. This should be after
> > "Derived Works":
>
> That's because code reuse wasn't seen as a relevant issue for
> building a distribution. The DFSG is simply an attempt to define our
> minimal requirements to maintain a piece of software as a part of our
> distribution.
I thought the DFSG was written of moral reasons rather than
practical...
But in that case, why not allow any freely-distributable binaries? If
the binaries don't conform to policy they cannot be included anyhow.
> > Code Reuse
> > The license must allow combining different works or parts
> > of works distributed under the same license, and must allow
> > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> > of the original works.
> >
> > Then WHY did the FSF approve the QPL? Harmony was already on its
> > way...
>
> Harmony was dropped, by the people who were writing it, when Troll
> claimed that they were going to solve the GPL incompatability issues.
>
> Unfortunately, if the QPL is supposed to represent that solution, Troll
> lied about what they were going to do. [Then again, I hadn't archived
> any exact quotes -- perhaps they only lied by implication.]
I see...
But what I meant was that I was surprised that the FSF added the QPL
to its list of Free licenses. Maybe there are other points to consider
that might mean the QPL is Free?
One possible point I can think of is that since it's not likely that
there will be any initial developers other than Troll using the QPL,
so the problem of reusing QPL code in other QPL products will never be
relevant.
> > > > > DFSG allows proprietary licenses. GPL does not.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that... Of course DFSG doesn't allow
> > > > proprietary licenses.
> > >
> > > I don't know why you bother saying that you don't know what I mean
> > > at the same time you contradict me. You should at least explain
> > > what you mean...
> >
> > I was responding to what I thought was the most likely meaning of what
> > you said, which was that DFSG allowed proprietary licenses.
>
> Well, I consider the QPL to be a proprietary license, for example...
>
> > > > Its very goal is to define what's Free and what's proprietary (unless
> > > > you're using a different definition of "free"). The QPL is considered
> > > > Free by all of DFSG, OSD (irrelevant here) and the FSF. I can't think
> > > > of any other important Free Licenses definitions.
> > >
> > > Each Free License is itself a Free License definition of sorts (based
> > > on what other licenses can be combined in a work). The BSD license
> > > defines a very relaxed sort of freedom which just means that the author
> > > gets credit for their work. The GPL defines a much more specific sort
> > > of freedom which guarantees that developers can continue to work on
> > > whatever forks they choose. Etc.
> >
> > When looking at things from this angle... The problem of GPL
> > incompatibility with other licenses (not necessarily the QPL) results
> > from the GPL's definition of Freedom being different from that of the
> > DFSG (or the FSF or whatever). Were the definitions identical there
> > would be no "Free but GPL-incompatible" licenses listed on the FSF's
> > license page. Is this the case? If so, would you say the GPL is too
> > strict or the FSF too relaxed?
>
> The GPL existed for something like a decade before the DFSG came into
> existence.
I wasn't talking about the DFSG but about FSF's criteria for Free
licenses.
> I believe that what the FSF mean by "Free but GPL-incompatible" is
> code which can be distributed non-commercially in source code, even
> though there's some sort of other restriction on it.
If that were the case, Apple's license (for example) and licenses
which permit free distribution of unmodifed source code should have
been considered as Free by the FSF, which they are not.
In it's Free Software definition the FSF clearly defines being able to
change and improve programs as a Free Software criterion. To the
extent I've been able to see, it doesn't explicitly say to what degree
being able to combine parts of different programs written by different
people is a part of this criterion.
> > > > > Perhaps you're thinking of authoring a GPL-like license which allows
> > > > > any DFSG software to be combined?
> > > >
> > > > That could indeed be useful but is not what I had in mind. I did mean
> > > > upgrading the GPL.
> > >
> > > I hope you understand that I think of what you're suggesting as
> > > downgrading the GPL.
> > >
> > > If you were really thinking of taking a license and adding more guarantees
> > > of freedom you'd be talking about the LGPL -- or, if its protections aren't
> > > strong enough for you, you'd be talking about upgrading it so that those
> > > protections are stronger.
> > >
> > > Instead you're talking about weakening the GPL so that it can be legally
> > > used in conjunction with QPLed software without getting proper permission
> > > from the original authors.
> >
> > If the QPL (or any other non-GPL license) is considered a Free
> > license, this shouldn't be a problem. The way I see it the original
> > authors already gave the FSF a permission to do such things when they
> > gave users a permission to use any later version of the GPL with their
> > software.
>
> I think you should read a bit more about what the Free Software Foundation
> is trying to do. There are a number of pages under the "Why we exist"
> at the www.fsf.org site which should be explain those issues to you.
> The comments in the essay on the Netscape license are somewhat relevant
> to the QPL.
Yes I'm familiar with these :) I could not see anywhere that the FSF
explain their rationale of why they recommend authors to allow people
to regard their software as covered by any future version of the GPL
at their option. This is why I'm assuming that the purposs was to
indeed to introduce a safety valve.
> Also, I should point out that the FSF is not associated with Debian,
> except as an upstream author. Talk about changing the GPL doesn't
> really belong on debian-legal...
Yes... But these issues do affect Debian a lot. There has been a lot
of talk lately of the KDE problem, and I thought that one solution
(changing the GPL) did not get sufficient attention.
> --
> Raul
>
- Adi Stav
Reply to: