Florian Weimer wrote: > * Roberto C. Sanchez: > > >>I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or >>already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0]. >>Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective >>licenses (as I understand it): >> >>* libc6 (LGPL) >>* libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception) >>* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL) >>* libstdc++5 (GPL) >>* libx11-6 (MIT/X) >>* libxext6 (MIT/X) > > > And the problem is that regexplorer is licensed under the plain QPL? > Yes. > >>My question is this. Is Debian accepting QT3 under the GPL or the >>QPL? > > > As far as I know, Debian complies with the QPL requirements, so we can > choose between QPL and GPL on a per-application basis. > OK. So if someone offers a program under a dual license, it is possible to accept it under the terms of both licenses at the same time? > >>Specifically: >> >>(1) is the exception for libgcc1 sufficient for regexplorer to link? > > > Yes, as long as you use GCC to compile regexplorer. > > >>(2) is QT3 in Debian via QPL or GPL? > > > It's dual-licensed. > Same question as above. > >>(3) is libstdc++5 actually GPL w/o exception? > > > No, all source files should be covered by the usual exception. If > they aren't, upstream considers this a bug. > Oops. I went back and read the copyright file and saw right where I missed it. > >>Additionally, it seems like QPL licensed code can't be in main > > > QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An > additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve > things. Even though the license says this: "You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this." Is this not similar to placing a restriction that binary distribution must be at no cost, or something similar? Is it OK in this case beacuse it only mandates that access to the source must be at no cost? I know that this OK in the case of Debian distributing the source, since there is no charge for people to access the mirrors, but I don't see how this complies with DFSG #1. If I want to sell someone a QPL program, I can only sell the binary and must give away the source. So is the source not part of the program for the purposes of DFSG #1? I don't mean to be belligerent. I just want to make sure I understand. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature