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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try
From:       Raul Miller <rdm () test ! legislate ! com>
Date:       1998-12-01 3:17:04
[Download RAW message or body]

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> wrote:
>    1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches.  In order
>       to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
>       applied to the source.  If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their
>       patch, they will be able to make sure they can't, regardless of what
>       any of us do.

Nope.  Patches are derived works.  Think about what a patch looks like.

Even if you come up with a patch format that doesn't include anything
of the original, binaries are still derived works, so you can apply
controls there.

Aside: one thing the QPL drafts lack is a definition for "patch".
I'm going on the usual practice for software development, but I think
that this omission will need to be rectified unless the patch clause
is entirely eliminated [perhaps in favor of a relabelling clause --
I see no reason to call a Qt derivative Qt if the API might be different].

>    5. It'd still be cool to have a license that was compatible with the GPL
>       if possible.  It might not be possible, but if it were possible I was
>       going to try.

I don't think this will be possible with a patch clause.  I think this
would be possible with a relabelling clause.  Ultimately, it's up
to Troll Tech.

-- 
Raul

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