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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Licensing alternative
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-01-26 15:13:14
[Download RAW message or body]

I agree that if people are going to be using the GPL they should use
this version, but I do seriously doubt that there is anything wrong
currently. Reasonable usage and interpretation of a license is allowed,
and I think would apply here. Of course, I am not a lawyer either so I
don't know ;-) The thing that makes me perturbed is that several people
have admitted the whole license debate is an emotional one and *not*
grounded in law, and that makes me pretty sick.  

Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> 
>    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

-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
http://www.mosfet.org - The place for KDE development news.
mosfet@mandrakesoft.com
mosfet@kde.org

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