Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> I meant that source code could only be distributed under that new
> BSDL-like license. For the purposs of discussion lets call it
> Anticopyleft license. You could distribute binaries under the
> Anticopyleft license, the BSDL license or any other license you like,
> but not the GPL because the GPL requires that source code is available
> under the GPL when distributing binaries. This would enforce
> non-copyleftability.
Well, duh. If the license specifically excludes the GPL then the GPL
wouldn't be allowed.
> A different BSDL-like license (lets call it Copyleft BSDL) that
> requires modifications to be distributed under the Copyleft BSDL and
> accompanying source code wouldn't, of course, allow its code to be
> relicensed as GPL. But would it allow linking? This is not obviously
> "no" for me because when you link BSDL code and GPL code you don't
> have to distribute that BSDL code as GPL. The package as a whole is
> GPL but not the BSDL parts. So what makes a license GPL-compatible? Is
> the criterion being able to relicense it as GPL?
This seems vague and pointless. There's no such license but depending
on what a license would say it would or would not be legal.
> If so, a GPL with an added clause saying it can be linked to Qt
> may not be GPL compatible... And if that Qt-compatible GPL can
> be relicensed as pure GPL, then ANY modification may strip that
> Qt-compatibility clause.
GPL with added Qt acceptability clause would be GPL compatible, but the
GPL without that clause still couldn't be combined with Qt. This should
be obvious.
> Also you didn't say whether you would consider the Anticopyleft a free
> license. Do you equate free with GPL-compatible?
GPL-compatability is one flavor of free. There are literally dozens of
other flavors of free.
By the way a square is a kind of rectangle, but that doesn't mean that
a rectangle is a kind of square.
> > 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.
>
> That would make the modification a separatable form rather than
> separate. Separate in potential only.
No. They'd always be separate, they'd just not always be distributed.
> Do you think a court would allow that?
I imagine that would depend on other things (like how difficult it is
getting at the separate versions).
Do you think any of this discussion is at all suitable for debian-legal?
If so, why?
[There's no chance that debian will change the GPL. Debian has no legal
right to do so.]
--
Raul
Reply to: