Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > 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.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:44:49AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Is this really the issue, or is the issue the fact that modifications
> cannot be copylefted? Consider a license very similar to BSDL, except
> that it contains a clause saying that you can distribute binaries
> under any license you like, but source code (modified or not) must
> be distributed under the BSDL. Such a license would give all users
> equal rights, but also ensure that you have no way to prevent your
> modifications from becoming proprietary binaries.
>
> Would you still consider such a license free? And will it be
> compatible with the GPL?

I don't see any issue here.  It's already the case that BSD software is
distributed under the BSD license...

Now maybe you're trying to suggest a clause that would prohibit
distribution under other licenses?  That, of course, would prohibit
distribution under the GPL, since the GPL is another license.

> > > 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.
> 
> What about the patch clause? Even if the QPL didn't allow Troll to
> demand modifications to themselves?

That might be an issue too.  But that's less of an issue, it's
not about basic freedoms.

Note that the requirement isn't that modifications be distributed as
patches -- patches are just an example of how to fullfill the requirement
that modifications should be distributed in a separate form from the
Software -- it might very well be that as long as you can demonstrate
the ability to distribute both modified and unmodified versions of the
QPLed software that you're satisfying this clause.

-- 
Raul