Re: GPLv3 / Affero / RPSL
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed
> > it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL.
>
> As you well know, the role of "spokesman for Debian" was arrogated by
> Joseph Carter, who failed to, as I recall, accurately convey to
> TrollTech the concerns about the QPL being expressed at the time. In
> fact, so far as I know we have no record of his correspondence with them
> on this issue.
No disputes there; however, it was Debian's responsibility to ensure that
our spokesman -- official or not -- was accurately reflecting our concerns
and communicating back do us. Failing that, Debian should have replaced him
-- or at least had some other people participate in the discussions. So I
don't think it's entirely a case of being able to pin it all on Joseph; the
rest of us should have seen it coming and done something about it. (I
include myself in that group)
> > Now is, I think, too late to go back on that decision. There is value
> > in being trusted.
>
> I think TrollTech sent a very strong message, and made a good move, when
> they decided to dual-license Qt under the QPL and the GPL.
Agreed 100%.
> They were big enough to admit that they erred with Qt's licensing
> initially, and they did not lose the respect of the community. Indeed,
I think they did lose a lot of respect, and people continue to harbor ill
will. In one surprisingly candid post[1] from Miguel de Icaza in response to
a Petrely article critizing Gnome that ran on Slashdot, Miguel stated:
"Those with long-term visions believe strongly that the foundation
for building applications on Linux should be royalty free so Gnome is a
good choice there."
...
"Some people want gnome because it makes sense
license-wise (Red Hat and Sun seem to be concerned about *this*
particular issue)."
[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-March/msg00026.html
Now, obviously I don't agree that a GPL license is a problem or imposing
royalties on anyone (where THAT came from is anyone's guess). But if
someone like Miguel misunderstands, I don't think that Troll has fully
removed the stigma from their actions yet.
> KDE in particular continues to thrive.
>
> So why cannot we be big enough to admit that, if we have officially
> declared the QPL a DFSG-free license (a declaration of which I can find
> no evidence), that we erred, and that we recommend people follow
> TrollTech's example and dual-license their works under the QPL and GPL
> (with the footnote that many other DFSG-free licensing arrangements are
> possible, and they should feel free to contact us)?
I must admit, I'm beginning to see it your way :-)
Do we have any idea how much and what software is licensed under QPL only,
with no dual-license provision?
-- John
Reply to: