Re: GPLv3 suggestion to solve KDE/QT problem and others
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:23:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't have to specifically exclude the GPL. The GPL wouldn't be
allowed only because the GPL requires that for all binaries released
there is source code under the GPL, while this hypothetical
Anticopyleft license would not allow releasing source code under any
other license but itself. Therefore it would be impossible to satisfy
both licenses, and that without explicitly disallowing the GPL in the
Anticopyleft license.
[from later...]
> > 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.
So would you consider the Anticopyleft license free?
This would be exactly like the Qt license -- an author who writes free
software only would have the choice of either releasing his or her
modifications under a license that is currently (by initial
assumption) free but have no way to guarantee that these modifications
remain free.
The only difference being that under the Qt less people in the world
have the power to make these modifications proprietary, while under
the Anticopyleft license anyone would be able to.
> > 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.
It's a hypothetical license.
I'm trying to see if there are easy criteria for GPL-compatibility,
and to see in what ways these are related to a freedom. I hope this
could simplify finding solutions (to the KDE/Qt problem and others)
more easily.
> > 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.
Why would these two (GPL and GPL+Qt) be compatible? Afterall the GPL
adds a restriction to the license when compared with GPL+Qt, and
that's not allowed.
> > > 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.
The QPL only grants the right to distribute modifications in a
separate form. It does not grant the right to distribute modifications
in any other way. That would contradict the QPL, whether the
modifications are also available as a separate form or not.
> > 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.]
No more than we have the legal right to add the Qt clause to KDE
programs. We don't have the legal right but we might still have ways
to affect things.
Anyhow it seems that there's no much support for changing the GPL so
I've given up on that for now, anyhow. But I still find this thread
helpful as noted earlier in this message. Would you say it's off
topic?
> --
> Raul
>
- Adi Stav
Reply to: