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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: A Detailed Analysis of the GPL For KDE/QT
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-10-15 14:07:17
[Download RAW message or body]

Raul Miller wrote:

> Andreas, I apologize for giving you more information than you can
> absorb.

I'm sorry?

> This message quotes some critical parts of your original analysis,
> and points out one major omission.
>
> Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > For purposes of this analysis, I will assume that Qt Free Edition
> > ("Qt") is not a component of the OS ...
>
> > OK, the analysis will break down along the lines of (i) KDE developers who
> > use third-party GPL'd code ("KDE Developers"), since KDE developers who
> > don't use third-party GPL'd code are an easier case, and (ii) distributors,
> > like Debian, who don't modify source code but may compile source code and
> > distribute statically-linked KDE/Qt executables ("Static KDE Binaries") as a
> > service to their customers ("Distributors").  "Third Party GPL Code" means
> > source code written by non-KDE Developers which is used by KDE Developers in
> > their KDE applications, "Derivative KDE Apps" means programs developed by
> > KDE Developers for use with KDE and Qt using Third Party GPL Code, and "KDE
> > Apps" means programs developed by anyone for use with KDE and Qt.
>
> >       "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> >     of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> >     distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> >     above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
>
> > Well, KDE Developers modify Third Party GPL Code, so Section 2 applies to
> > that.  They can then distribute the resulting code under Section 1.  Recall
> > that Section 1 only requires notices/disclaimers/license copies, and so the
> > KDE Developers, like all other developers using Third Party GPL code, should
> > include that stuff in their Derivative KDE Apps.
>
> >         "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >         whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >         part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> >         parties under the terms of this License.
> >
> > Well, I think it fair to say that the Derivative KDE Apps are
> > distributed and published under the GPL and are licensed as a whole
> > at no charge to third parties. Remember we are only talking about
> > the source code of the Derivative KDE Apps, I am assuming that the
> > KDE Developers are not distributing Qt code (as far as I know that's
> > factually correct, but even if not, they could easily stop doing so)
> > and this portion of the analysis applies only to KDE Developers (not
> > Distributors, who are analyzed separately below).

[SNIP]

> You seem to have ignored the last six words of that last sentence you
> quoted from the GPL:  "under the terms of this License."  Since you've
> assumed that the terms of this license do not apply to the resulting work,
> all following analysis is meaningless.

No, I don't think I did.  First of all, I have made the point that that clause
does not necessarily mean "license the modified work under the GPL", you can look
at my posts from yesterday on that issue (are you reading those?), I have argued
it can plausibly be read to mean you just have to license it for *free* (i.e., at
no charge) under the terms of the GPL (i.e. only the GPL terms for no charges
apply, not other GPL terms).

But the more important, and non-controversial, point is that the Derivative
KDE Apps *are* licensed under the GPL, so I don't see your problem.

If I thought that the Derivative KDE App were not licensed under the GPL, then
there would have been no point in analyzing the Distributor under the GPL as I
did, would there now?  The analysis would have been done then and there.  You're
not thinking what you are saying through.

> The conditions set out in section 2b are that the KDE Developers must
> case "Derivative KDE Apps" to be license at a whole to all third parties
> >>under the terms of this License<<.  If they have not done so, they
> have no right to distribute the Derivative KDE App.

But they are doing that, so what's your point?

> Once again, >>>the KDE Developers<<< can distribute verbatim copies of
> the Derivative KDE App provided >>>all third parties<<< may distribute
> the Derivative KDE App under the terms of the GPL [and there can't
> be a fee for them to gain this right].
>
> [You've indicated, on several occasions, that you do not believe that
> the terms of the GPL apply to the Derivative KDE App,

There you go again, misquoting me (oh, sorry, you don't even bother to quote me,
there you go again, misattributing a claim to me).

I'm sorry, Raul, I cannot debate with you any longer, you just make way too many
things up, I don't know why you do this, but it does make it impossible to keep
an intelligent debate going.

I will not respond to your earlier e-mail (Message ID
<19981015001728.J2658@test.legislate.com>), since your main point seems to be
that "Section 2 makes perfect sense when applied to object code".  Well, I don't
think it does, see the section "POINT 1:  SECTION 2 DOES NOT APPLY TO OBJECT
CODE" which is in an earlier e-mail I posted (<362423AD.AB4FDE66@mieterra.com>,
dated Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:08:13 +0000).  And even if it did, well, never mind,
I will never persuade you.

> and that this
> frees up the Distributors from having to follow those terms.  From this
> I conclude that your omitting to mention this requirement of section 2b
> in the above quoted analysis is a significant aspect of your analysis.]
>
> Perhaps you could re-write your analysis with this omission rectified?
>
> --
> Raul

Regards,

Andreas F. Pour
pour@mieterra.com

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