Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:06:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
...
> > > 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.
The BSD is a "non-copylefted free" too.
> But there's nothing there that indicates that the GPL should be considered
> flawed because the QPL is incompatible with it.
Well, I did not say that now...
> > > 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.
Alright. Let me change my suggestion: that the GPL allows adding
certain restriction to the distribution of a derived work combining a
GPL program and non-GPL programs if the non-GPL license demands
that. I suppose that the right restrictions would both avoid
compromising the freedom of that GPL code and add to the compatibility
of the GPL (although I guess the QPL is a lost case here). Are any
such restrictions possible?
> > 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.
Wouldn't the main point be that QPL code cannot be reused even within
other QPL programs as you've said before?
Rethinking about it, it doesn't have to be so. You wouldn't be able to
paste QPL code into a QPL program anyhow, you'd have to distribute a
patch that combines the two programs and give both authors rights over
it. So it IS possible to reuse QPL code as long as it remains within
the QPL. Am I right?
> > 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?
Same thing. And the same thing with the QPL, too. So what if Troll can
make the QPL parts' modifications proprietary? These parts will be
useless without the GPL parts! The work gone into the GPL parts will
not become proprietary, regardless.
But I wonder if it is at all possible for a license to be
GPL-compatible and not allow GPL relicensing.
> --
> Raul
>
Reply to: