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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: can normal programs be LGPL'ed?]
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1998-12-11 3:58:54
[Download RAW message or body]

"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
> 
> >> = Adam Richter
> >  = Adnreas Pour
> 
> >>         No, that is the crux of your misunderstanding.  If work A
> >> imposes restrictions a1 a2 and a3 and work B imposes restrictions b1
> >> b2 and b3, then you can copy a+b (the combined work as a whole) when
> >> you are meeting all of conditions a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3 (in some cases you
> >> may be allowed to meet a subset of these conditions, but that's another
> >> matter).
> 
> >OK, sounds right.
> 
> >>  In the case of producing a derivative work from X consortium
> >> code plus GPL'ed code, you have a case where a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3 = b1 b2 b3,
> >> so the functional combined work as a whole can be copied under the
> >> terms of the GPL (i.e., it is "licensed" under these terms).
> 
> >Well, that's true if you do not have to distribute the whole work under the GPL.  My
> >point only is that you cannot "convert" X code to the GPL license.  The reason you
> >can't do this is b/c XFree license is incompatible with the GPL -- GPL imposes a
> >bunch of "conditions" (or "obligations" in case you want to redistribute) which
> >XFree license does not.  I'm *not* saying that you cannot distribute X Free code
> >together with GPL code -- in fact I think you can distribute X code and QT Free code
> >along with GPL code -- but I am only responding to the "conversion" theory which
> >some have espoused.  So please take this thread in context, that way there will be
> >fewer misunderstandings (I hope).
> 
>         There is a fundamental difference between distributing code that
> comingles GPL+XFree content and code that comingles GPL+Qt content.
> Meeting all of the conditions of GPL distribution and all of the
> conditions of XFree distribution is the same as meeting just the
> conditions of the GPL, which is what is meant by the combined work
> being "licensed as a whole" under the terms of the GPL.  In comparison,
> meeting all of the conditions of GPL distribution and meeting all of the
> conditions of QPL-0.91 distribution (or any previous version of QPL)
> is different from meeting just conditions of the GPL because the
> QPL imposes restrictions not present in the GPL (such as requiring
> source distribution to be original+patches only, and prohibiting
> integrating material that Troll Tech does not at least have the
> option to make available for linking into proprietary software by its
> customers).
>         In summary, the difference is as follows.

Hmm... QPL requires that any code patched into it be under a license 
that lets them use it the way they use the original code.  The GPL has
exactly the same requirement.

In fact the GPL goes farther in demanding that patches written to GPL
apps must be GPL and nothing else.

What dose the Tex license say ?  ( I think that's the one )

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