Re: Fwd: Re: Heart of the debate
I just want to prefix this message by saying the issue I am concerned with is
whether I can apply the GPL to a KDE application.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks
> > about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative
> > works must be licensed under the GPL.
>
> Thank you.
I'm guessing this means you agree with me. Now under my interpretation the
value of the Program (the KDE app source code) is held constant throughout the
interpretation of the GPL. So that the complete source code consists of several
works not based on the Program (QT, kdesupport, kdelibs, kernel, c library ..)
along with the Program. Thus the exception clause of Section 2:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with
the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License."
Is applicable and the complete source is not under the scope of the license.
Under you interpretation of the GPL it's quite a different matter. 3a requires
redefining the work to be the complete source code, section 2b requires
licensing the complete work as a whole under the terms of the GPL.
(Marc van Leeuwen if you are reading this paragraph is relevant to you).
To repeat myself if this is the case then why is the GPL so complicated? Why
then does the GPL bother to distinguish between source code and the complete
source at all?
(This is also relevant to the Xfree license issue, as it shows under Raul's
interpretation that linking to Xfree, means Xfree is part of the complete
source code, which requires GPLing Xfree if you want to distribute a binary of
you application).
> > Now if your interpretation is correct why can't 3a be clear and easy to
> > understand like 2b is? That is why doesn't 3a say:
> >
> > Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
> > which must be licensed as a whole under the terms of Section 1 and 2 of this
> > license...
>
> The parenthetical note in Section 0 already covers this aspect, since
> the executable or object is a modification of the source.
This statement is wrong in so many ways:
1) I'm not talking about the executable or object form. I'm talking about the
complete corresponding machine readable source code.
2) So you are saying here that in order to distribute the Program in executable
form, you must go through 3 (no subsection), which redefines Program to mean
the executable form which, which means 2b must be satisfied, which means the
binary must be licensed under the GPL.
If this is the case then I suspect all distributors of executable forms of the
GNU grep program are guilty of copyright violation as the are distributing
executable forms of GNU grep that are not licensed under the GPL. (See my
previous message for info about grep).
3) My question was why is the language used in 2b and 3a inconsistent. Your
answer doesn't address this issue in any way whatsoever.
> Section 3 is only concerned with *additional* requirements.
>
> > > Well I disagree I think 2b requires derivative works to be licensed
> > > under the entire GPL not just part of it.
> >
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong.
>
> I think I see the distinction you're trying to make.
>
> I think you're trying to say that you can distribute a collective work
> based on a GPLed Program without the distribution of that collective
> work being under the control of the GPL. And, the mechanism you're
> trying to propose involves distributing the collective work as a whole
> such that it does not contain a notice from the copyright holder saying
> it may be distributed under the GPL.
>
> Is this true?
Not quite, I'm saying:
A KDE application can be licensed under the GPL.
> If this isn't true, I don't see that this distinction you're trying to
> make has any practical legal consequences.
To restate myself, the phrase the work "must distributed under the
terms of this license" is neither equivalent to nor implies the work "when
distributed must be licensed as a whole under the terms of this License". And
this fact lies at the heart of this debate.
(Really apply isn't such a good word to use so I think this makes things clearer
than my initial statment)
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: