Re: Bug#270461: lincvs: No free license & misleading copyright file
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > GPL is usually free, but when, as here, it is applied only under
> > the condition that one links with (a certain version of Qt) it is
> > not free.
> I think this is the wrong way of putting it. This is not a case of a
> "non-free application of the GPL". This software is not under the GPL
> at all; it's under a different, non-free, GPL-incompatible license that's
> easily confused with the GPL.
I don't think we have any substantial disagreement. I agree that the
license grant is non-free and non-GPL. However, this non-free license
still *arises* as the result of a failed attempt to apply the GPL.
I might perhaps have phrased it more stringently, but I preferred
trying to avoid confusing the maintainer with too pedantic
distinctions that are not really necessary for understanding why the
result is non-free. The maintainer turned out to be a d-l regular, so
I needn't have bothered ...
> Also, dual-licensing the rest would be relatively useless without dual-
> licensing these files, too, unless these files are easily removed.
True. Originally my (confused) hypothesis was that these files were
used only in the context where the GPL is relevant, but presumably Qt
needs the same glue code in all its incarnations.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg har skabt lammeskyer, piskeris,
fingerspidsfornemmelser, polarkalotter, loddenhed,
vantro, rutenet, skumtoppe, datid, halvdistancer, restoplag,
gigt, pligtdanse, græsrødder, afdrift, bataljer, tyrepis, løvfald,
sideblikke, hulrum, røjsere, mislyd, loppetjans, øer, synsrande..."
Reply to: