Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:46:33AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> 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.
This is completely backwards. The GPL allows no such restrictions.
However, copyright law allows the copyright owner to add additional
copyrights, and the copyright owner can add the right which allows such
restrictions to the rights granted in the GPL.
I do understand that talking about adding the right to restrict rights
seems a bit odd, but that's really what we're talking about.
> 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?
The GPL doesn't permit such restrictions.
However, the FSF page that you've been refering to already gives you
an example of a permissions clause which deals with the QPL/GPL
compatability issue.
...
> > 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?
What QPL programs? QPL is a library.
And reuse doesn't really focus on the right issue. The issue is whether all
users have full rights to distribute and modify the code and all derivatives
of the code.
The QPL guarantees that all users do not have such rights, thus it's
incompatible with the GPL which guarantees that all users do have such
rights.
> 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?
Well, you're right that QPL code can be reused. But you're wrong about
this being the defining issue.
> > > 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.
This doesn't even make sense. You can't legally have a work which has
both QPLed and GPLed parts, unless you relax the GPL's guarantees that
everyone can modify and redistribute any fork of the code. At which point
there isn't really much point in using the GPL and you might as well just
use some other license...
> But I wonder if it is at all possible for a license to be
> GPL-compatible and not allow GPL relicensing.
What is "GPL relicensing"?
--
Raul
Reply to: