[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Licensing alternative
From:       Stefan Westerfeld <stefan () space ! twc ! de>
Date:       2000-01-26 15:03:31
[Download RAW message or body]

   Hi!

On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 05:58:31AM -0600, Mosfet wrote:
> Believe me, I really don't like the GPL. Nonetheless the nonsense that
> some people like Debian have been maintaining about GPL incompatiblity
> is just that - nonsense. The author of a KDE application can require
> linking to anything he or she wants. If you create a GPL KDE or Qt
> application permission to use those libraries is implicit. You require
> it for building. You most likely use it's configuration system for
> compiling. If it's a core application you upload it into KDE's core
> packages. If it's not you most likely upload it to KDE's ftp server.
> Every other line probably calls KDE/Qt. Saying you need to place
> explicit statements in the license allowing to build your application is
> utter and complete nonsense and has no legal basis whatsoever from what
> I can tell. At least Debian has admitted to this and that it's mostly an
> anti-KDE emotional issue for many of them. 

Your argument is: every person should be able to see that it is intended
to be used together with Qt. I agree.

However, the legal interpretation doesn't necessarily follow what would make
sense. If any knowledgable person (lawyer) can assure that there is a legal
term like "implicit permission", and that it does undoubtfully apply to KDE,
then we have no problem.

But I would assume that "implicit permission" is something that seems logical
to people who don't care about law, but isn't something founded in copyright
law.

After Debians understanding, the only relevant thing is what you can read in
the license. The license needs to state everything you are allowed to do and
prohibited to do. No other source (such as guessing, hoping, logical thinking,
reading something in a FAQ or on a webpage) can tell you what you can or can't
do with a copyrighted piece of software.

If in the license is stated:
- you may not link this to software that is not GPLd

Then you may not do this, regardless of whether it makes sense, or whatever.


Also note that you can never claim that "implicit permission" is also
valid on code you just copied from somewhere, as the original author
doesn't know about that, and consequently couldn't give "implicit
permission". (Otherwise, Microsoft may as well claim "implicit permission"
when copying the whole KDE source and using it in their software).


I think applying a three lines fix to the affected sources which has no
negative impact is the easy way to get out of that. It may be too much,
but it is at least sufficient to clarify the issue.

Every developer has the right to choose his license text. You may hate GPL
and choose some other license. But if you use GPL, I'd strongly recommend
the modified version.

   Cu... Stefan

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]