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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] QPL 0.91
From:       Carl Thompson <cet () elinux ! net>
Date:       1998-12-03 22:16:42
[Download RAW message or body]

     Wow.  The new QPL (v0.91) is MUCH improved over the previous version. 
It's quite nice that TT will allow patch submitters to use whatever license
they wish and doesn't automatically give itself permission to use the code
if the patch is not released under the QPL.  This is clearly a step in the
right direction.

     I did notice a few "bugs" in this version though:

1. Section 3 seems to imply that patches can be submitted under whatever
   license the author chooses (should be explicitly stated), but 4c seems
   to contradict that.

2. I assume that many people will wish to release their patches under the
   QPL so that TT can incorporate them into its product.  Suppose though
   that a programmer "A" writes a patch for QT and releases the patch under
   the QPL.  Programmer "B" finds an error in the patch and fixes it.
   Programmer "B" cannot simply submit the fixed patch as a new patch
   against QT.  Because Programmer "A's" original patch is also under the
   QPL, programmer "B" has to distribute his patch as the original QT,
   programmer "A's" original patch, and a patch against that patch!  This
   system would become unusable after only a few modifications, and
   interrelated patches would be logistically impossible.  Clearly, if
   patches are to be allowed to be licensed under the QPL, then the QPL will
   have to drop the pristine source + patch requirement in order for this to
   work.  There are many other scenarios which also show that being able to
   distribute modified sources is the only realistic approach (CVS servers,
   etc).

3. There is nothing in the license that forbids linking commercial
   applications with library code released under the QPL.  Section 6 is
   probably supposed to do that but doesn't.  TT probably intends that this
   license only be used for non-commercial software, so the license should
   explicitly state this and explicitly deny use for commercial software.
   (Unless of course TT has decided that commercial use is OK as long as
   source code is distributed.)  Item 6b is probably not at all what TT
   intended, I read it as granting the recipient of 3rd party software which
   uses QPLed code permission to redistribute the 3rd party software under
   the exact same terms under which the recipient got the software which
   could include payment to the software maker!  Furthermore, the license
   does not at all restrict commercial software that is distributed as
   source code.  If TT truly intends that commercial software should be able
   to freely use QPLed code then I think that is great.  Otherwise, section
   6 should be completely rewritten to make it clear which 3rd party
   software can or can't use QPLed libraries and the conditions for use.


     All in all, if the above problems are resolved, the QPL becomes very
much like the GPL.  Why not just release the free edition under the GPL,
then?  It would allow use by GPLed software such as KDE but deny use by
commercial propriety software.  The only real difference would be that TT
would have to get permission from the patch authors to use their patches in
their commercial product, but that shouldn't be a problem as people seem
very willing to do this.

     I feel obligated to mention though that I still believe that KDE should
be based on a library that is free for all uses, including commercial (the
same as the other main Linux libraries).  As long as QT is not as free as
the rest of the core Linux libraries, I believe that the Harmony project
should continue to develop an LGPLed QT clone and I will work toward that
end.  

     Any comments?

Later,
Carl Thompson


Bernd Gehrmann wrote:
> 
> www.troll.no has now a new version of the QPL.
> The main difference (apart from changing the wording)
> seems to be that TT must make versions of Qt that incorporate
> other people's patches also available under the QPL;
> moreover they don't prescribe a precise license under which
> patches have to be distributed to the public.
> Anything else?
> 
> Bernd.

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