Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
> > If we don't have permission to modify the software, and distribute
> > changes, then it's better to leave distribution of that software to
> > someone who can deal with such issues.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:54:48AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Yet non-free is, for all practical purposses, a part of Debian
> (whatever the official stand may be). This is because by supporting
> non-free Debian is already taking upon itself the burden of dealing
> with these issues. The only gain I see in officially declaring them
> not to be a part of Debian and not allowing depends relationship from
> main is to discourage the use of proprietary software. Wouldn't you
> say that this is one of Debian's goals, explicit or otherwise?
The problems with non-free are generally that not everybody can use
the code, or that we can't really support it appropriately.
> > I think you're reading too much into the mere appearance of the QPL on
> > that page, and not reading enough into the accompanying text.
>
> Well, the accompanying text says (along with warnings and criticism)
> that the QPL is a Free license.
The phrase is "non-copyleft free", and the suggestion is to avoid using
QPL-covered software if you can. And, they even make a suggestion about
what to do if you've written a GPLed program where you want people to be
able to use Qt with it.
But there's nothing there that indicates that the GPL should be considered
flawed because the QPL is incompatible with it.
> > But changing the GPL in a fashion which violates its rationale (which
> > is spelled out in the preamble of the license) just plain doesn't strike
> > me as a good solution.
>
> Having GPL software linkable with other Free Software seems to me to
> be perfectly within the principles the preamble is outlining.
It is, if the author makes that decision, and provides an appropriate
exception.
> What bothers me here is the middleground. If a certain restriction the
> to the distribution of software is acceptible and does not mean the
> software is not Free, why do linking to it from GPL software would be
> a problem? And if such a restriction does have a problem, even the
> slightest one, why should the license be considered Free?
The problem with the QPL is that Troll owns copyright on all changes to
the QPL, and can re-release them under a commercial license.
Furthermore, the QPL requires this, so you don't have the option of
releasing your changes under the GPL to prevent this from happening.
This is analogous to what happens with the BSD license if you elect not
to release your changes under the GPL. But with BSD you at least have
the choice. QPL denies you that choice.
That denial of choice is what makes the QPL incompatible with the GPL.
But the BSD license is considered free -- even though it doesn't offer
the same protections as the GPL. So the QPL is also considered free: it
doesn't offer the protections of the GPL, and there's some subtle gotchas,
but at least you're allowed to make changes to it and redistribute the
changes without paying a fee.
> And I do see linking as different from a derived work in the regular
> text-editor sense. You can't, for example, take GPL code, modify it
> and license the result under the BSDL. Yet you can take GPL code,
> modify functions through the use of a BSDL linked library and release
> the result (the whole will be GPL but the specific BSDL part will not
> be). This cannot be used to make the GPL code proprietary because
> those BSDL modification will not even be usable if made proprietary
> (they need to be linked to the original GPL work to work).
How does this differ from an #include file which is kept under the
BSD license?
--
Raul
Reply to: