From kde-licensing Tue Dec 01 05:27:20 1998 From: Joseph Carter Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:27:20 +0000 To: kde-licensing Subject: Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-licensing&m=91248982101531 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--Bqc0IY4JZZt50bUr" --Bqc0IY4JZZt50bUr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:17:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > 1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In o= rder > > to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has t= o 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 w= hat > > any of us do. >=20 > Nope. Patches are derived works. Think about what a patch looks like. unidiff patches might be, as I said not long ago I really don't want to get into what patches are and aren't and what kinds are seperate works and what kinds aren't. > 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. Yes you can (and in the license I do..) > 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]. I didn't include a patch clause. I said patches are preferred, which means that you don't have to spell it out and you have some reasonable expectation of common sense. The GPL spells everything out and creates more confusion than it solves sometimes. I wanted to keep it simple and explain what I'm doing in comments which will be removed from the final proposal. > > 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. >=20 > 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. No it wouldn't be with a relabeling clause. It should be with what I've written in the v3 license. Question is, did I seriously overlook something important? The answer is almost certainly "probably".. Turns out though if I go away now it'll only be for a couple days, mostly depending on whether or not I can get a ride out of town to pick up a monitor. There's one for me if I can get there to get it. --=20 Show me the code or get out of my way. --Bqc0IY4JZZt50bUr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia iQEVAwUBNmN+M3RYxo9QvaDtAQHlsggAl3m9DY5X/c7y1BBB9ZzZ4/w4zjKZqPRd 2PMxXjD/g99oZJr9ZSffKHzunx5Xu4BwZH6fHB7cK5mLN6Hd4n8VCMa2GGDYW7LX yEMmUhTaLZwEB3GhwgioCvvhqzYXRdMvpvMXC0T6nELLa/6IITcv9rAZ9uNtrTFd ruDcAIG8B2nwPUVjWlWGlcMOdoJI2RS3hyIQq17G3DrFw9pPXE98tAVb/fP+J7XF BQWGvpDWfJ8RiDrbrXdp44ItsZmt51zOAxkMFqTrnwwfg3HfTaG9t15+ScY7E4hr 2/F1OwEC8Ftm+3idD6RSJrBcfKHJJUthllCnEHd5ymzMDtjml1Lb/A== =Thnm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Bqc0IY4JZZt50bUr--