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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Licensing alternative
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       2000-01-26 15:53:53
[Download RAW message or body]

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.

No lawyer can make such an assurance; as point of fact, no lawyer can even assure
that the GPL is enforceable (at least in any state/country I can think of).  Now
let's assume for the moment that the GPL would not permit linking with Qt (I
don't agree with that position, that's a matter of public record).   In the
common law system, contracts are interpreted in two general ways:  objective
intent and subjective intent of the parties, with the former being the more
common in the United States.  Now if you ask, using the objective intent
approach, what would a reasonable person releasing code designed to be linked
with Qt intend, it seems rather straightforward that the intent is that it may be
linked with Qt (of course if GPL'd code from other applications which are not
designed to be linked to Qt are included, all bets are off).  As to subjective
intent, that gets more difficult, but I think someone would be hard-pressed to
walk into court and argue, "I released this code which is designed to link with
Qt, but I did not intend for people to so link it".

> 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.

The law operates in mysterious ways.  But there are many circumstances where
things are implied.  In fact, there is such a creature as an implied-in-fact
contract.  The classic example being when you fill your tank at a gas station.
You have not entered into a formal contract with the gas station, but there is an
implicit agreement that you will pay the advertised price for the gasoline.

> 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.

The question then is, have they in fact read, and understood, the license?

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

That may be so, but the GPL in fact does not state that, so what's the point?

> 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.

The problem is that when you do that you may create the implication that you
think it is necessary.  If you don't think it is necessary, as many people don't,
then there probably is no reason to do it.

> 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.

I think the kde-licensing list, which I am copying on this, was designed for
these discussions :-).

Regards,

Andreas
speaking as a layperson

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