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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    [freeqt] Licensing problem with the QPL and more
From:       Carl Thompson <cet () elinux ! net>
Date:       1998-11-24 22:54:25
[Download RAW message or body]

On the Harmony development list recently there has been a lot of debate
about whether to continue developing Harmony as it is (an LGPLed project) 
or to abandon it in favor of Troll Tech's new QPL license for version 2.0 of
QT.  People who have been arguing for the QPL have had four major points:

1. It was not the intent of the Harmony project to benefit commercial
   developers so there is no need for an LGPLed Harmony
2. The QPL is "close enough" for Open Source Developers
3. Some key developers are afraid of being sued by Troll Tech
4. People feel it would be rude to Troll Tech to continue to copy their
   product

Point 1 was cited most often.  However, if you read the QPL, you'll see that
Troll Tech is allowed to use any patches to the QPLed version in their
commercial version WITHOUT explicit permission from the authors and sell it
as part of their product for $1,290 US per developer under Linux.  (If you
want upgrades, it will cost you an additional $395 US per year per developer
under Linux.  If you want the Windows version or GL support you pay even
more.)

In fact, under the QPL, ANYONE can take code contributed as patches and sell
it as part of ANY commercial package for ANY price.  The QPL doesn't even
have the basic "derivative work" protection of the LGPL.

The author of the patch does not have the right to restrict the use of her
patch in any way (for example to only open source projects).  Nor does she
have the right to distribute her patch under another Open Source license. 
In fact, patches to QPLed software cannot even be released under the QPL,
but only under clause 3b of the QPL (see below)!

Here is the relevant section of the QPL.  The annotation is from Troll Tech
and not me, and both this portion of the license and the annotation were
pulled today from their web site at http://www.troll.no/qpl/annotated.html .

  ...

  3. ...

    b. The patch must be explicitly licensed by the following clauses
       without additional restriction: 

            Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
            obtaining a copy of this patch, to deal in the patch without
            restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
            copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
            sell copies of the patch, subject to the following conditions:
            Any copyright notice and this permission notice must be included
            in all copies or substantial portions of the patch. 

      [ This clause has been inspired by the X Consortium license. It is
        designed to ensure that patches can be used by anyone without
        restrictions. This makes it possible to include patches in new
        versions of the software. For Troll Tech this means that we can
        incorporate patches into new versions of Qt. It also means that
        we can include the same patches in the Qt Professional Edition,
        which we intend to keep exactly equal to the Qt Free Edition.      ]

   4. ...

What this means is that Troll Tech (or anyone else) can use your Open Source
code for any reason (including development of a competing commercial
library).  On the contrary, if anyone wants to use Troll Tech's code for
commercial projects, Troll Tech must be paid.  This hardly seems like an
equitable exchange for the Open Source community.

Point number 1 is completely invalidated by this.

This also completely invalidates the following statements posted publicly to
the Harmony list.  I have not quoted everyone who made such statements here,
just those who made it their primary focus:


Olivier Galibert:
=================
You  don't mean  "commercial", here, you   mean proprietary.  _I_, for
one, won't go out of my way to help proprietary applications on Linux.
...
If you want "true freeness" like some  call it, go BSD.  Free software
isn't about making a  gratis  development environment for  proprietary
software developers.


Olivier Galibert:
=================
In my case,  you can  dismiss the "use  for  closed source developers"
part right now.  I don't fucking care about closed source developers.


Olivier Galibert:
=================
I do not care about proprietary applications.  I'm not a charity.


Mosfet:
=======
the Harmony project's goal was to create a free version of QT for *Open
Source* and *GNU* developers and users. Not to give commercial companies
who are going to charge end-users a freebie.
...
So are you representing commercial or Open Source developers. I thought
Harmony was for the Free Software community...


Mosfet:
=======
Bull. They released a lot of software to the public domain and as a
commercial company have been very giving to the community.  [ They are not
giving us anything.  This license takes YOUR code and puts it in THEIR
commercial product.  Just what you said you didn't want.  By the way, what
software have they put in the public domain and what have they given to the
community besides one toolkit with plenty of strings attached?  - Carl
Thompson ]


Mosfet:
=======
Another reason why I feel as I do is that TT took a huge step in giving us
a *gift*.  [ They are NOT giving us a gift.  They are giving themselves a
gift-- YOUR code. - Carl Thompson ]



Point 2 (The QPL is good enough for Open Source developers) is a view that
does not seem to be universally shared by Open Sourcers.  Here are some
opinions shared publicly on the Harmony list.  I didn't quote everyone who
made such statements, just a few.


Carl Thompson: [ My comments ]
==============================
Three step road map that could derail a completely free and open Linux

1. KDE becomes the de facto standard mainstream desktop for Linux.
2. If it does, commercial developers may feel that the only way to write
   viable Linux software is to conform to KDE.
3. If they do and there is no Harmony, commercial developers will be
   obligated to follow whatever constraints and terms TT chooses to put
   in their commercial license, and pay whatever price TT chooses.

The logic here is clear and as easy as 1-2-3.  I'm not saying it will
happen, I'm saying it's possible if we don't do something to make it
impossible.  That's all.

FACT: TT is in the software business to make money.
FACT: If the above scenario comes to pass, TT stands to make a LOT of
      money.
FACT: By not denying that they would sue the Harmony developers, they
      implied that they might.  They could have at least said "That's
      not the way we do business."  But they didn't.
FACT: TT did not release QT as Open Source back when doing that would
      clearly have saved the Open Source community a lot of grief,
      division, and embarrassment.  They could have but they didn't.

OPINION: The last two facts clearly show that their profits are more
         important to them than helping the Open Source community. I'm
         not saying there's anything wrong with that.  After all, they
         are in the software business to make money.  BUT NO COMMERCIAL
         COMPANY SHOULD CONTROL A KEY ASPECT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR LINUX.


Preston Brown:
==============
But isn't is less an issue of money, versus the _idea_ that there is some
sort of central control of the software?  Thinking about it, there is no
other circumstance like this in the Linux world.  Qt is now open source,
but it certainly isn't open in the sense of the rest of the main libraries
that come with linux.  If for instance the main X library had been under
this license, or even the C library, I'm not even sure Linux as we know it
would exist today.


Adam Richter:
=============
Whether deliberate or not, the result of Troll Technology's change to their
copying conditions appears to be a successful divide and conquer approach by
appeasing just the group that will settle for the right only to share Qt
modifications.


Adam Richter:
=============
Qt (and any other code covered by QPL 0.9) is not part of the pool of
recyclable software, and any contamination issues still *theoretically*
apply if you look at it and write code other than libqt patches.


Mark Hamstra:
=============
It is not simply a question of giving ISV's a "freebie," but rather is a
question of whether the promotion of a unified and consistent desktop
environment that can contain a mix of Open Source and closed source
applications justifies placing Harmony under the less restrictive LGPL.


Patrice Fortier:
================
But now try to imagine the amount of work needed to manage one year of
patches on _Qt_ sources.  Remember that you can't give away the modified
sources. Only the original sources tree + patches. Before someone could
recompile the modified tree he has to watch closely which patch must be
applied before which one, and which one, and so on... Try to do that with
500 patches, or even 20 patches on the same _file_ and you'll get the
picture.  Look at the problem we had if 2 or 3 developers were modifying
the cvs tree at the same time and multiply this by 100.
...
Don't forget that you'll need to rewrite all your _patches_ for each new
(official) Qt version to remain compatible. sounds fun :)


Andy Tai:
=========
QPL is taking advantage of a bug in the Open source definition. It possibly
is not truly in the spirit of Open Source.  Abandoning Harmony may not be
the best thing for the Free Software community.


Lars Doelle:
============
I cannot say what the best way to go would be, merging with QT or
producing a real competing product. I think one has keep in mind, that
the GNU project differs from Trolls direction, and the decision, whether
to merge or to compete mainly depends on how much GNU the Harmony
project is.


Sergey Panov:
=============
Well I've stopped using Qt more then a year ago, mostly because of
all that bickering about license, and I am afraid will not go back. It
is a great toolkit, but in my eyes its reputation is tarnished somehow
by all what had happened recently. It is almost like a spell.



Point 3 is that certain key developers of the Harmony project are afraid of
being sued by Troll Tech.  Specifically, Jo Dillon and Christian Boos have
both stated that this is a major concern for them in recent emails.  This is
a legitimate concern, but one I feel is one without teeth.

The only thing I can say to these people is that if they are afraid of Troll
Tech, quit the Harmony project and leave its development to those who are
not afraid.  Your code is already under the LGPL and there is nothing you
can do to undo that.


Finally, point 4 is one that I can't believe: that Harmony development
should stop because it would be rude to Troll Tech to continue to copy their
product.  I would not even address this point if it weren't for the fact
that so many people expressed this.  I find it absolutely amazing that
people would use this excuse over the objections of their fellow Open
Sourcers.  In particular two people who contributed to the discussion come
to mind: Preston Brown and Adam Richter (of Red Hat Software and Yggdrasil
Computing, respectively).  They (and their companies) have contributed more
to the Open Source community than Troll Tech ever will.  I can't understand
how anyone could hold the the desires of one for-profit company that has
only given the Open Source community one library (with many, many strings
attached) higher that the objections and opinions of these two men and the
many others who feel that the core libraries for a Linux distribution should
remain freely available for all developers, Open Source and commercial.

What if Linus Torvalds had thought that he shouldn't clone the functionality
and API of Unix(tm) because it would be "rude" to holders of the trademark
and those who profit from selling Unix systems?

Thank you,
Carl E. Thompson

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