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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Qt Free Edition License vs. XFree License
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-10 22:01:24
[Download RAW message or body]


I think I have been referring a lot to my prior arguments that the only
two requirements that the GPL imposes on distributing Qt source code if
I distribute a binary that is derived from KDE/Qt:

        First, I must distribute the complete source code to the binary
work, including Qt source code (this comes from Section 3 -- e.g.
Section 3(a) requires you to "accompany [a binary] it with the complete
corresponding machine-readable source code").

        Second, the source code be freely redistributable (this comes
from Section 2(b), which states that I must "cause any work that [I]
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").

Now, some others have made the point that the GPL also requires the
"complete source code" I have to distribute under Section 3 to be
modifiable, but they do not go so far as to say that the "complete
source code" must be *licensed* under the GPL, since that obviously does
not work (since you cannot license X code under the GPL).

My question has been, where does the GPL impose this obligation to
permit the complete source code to be modifiable?  In the hope of
advancing the debate a little, I put forth my argument for why the GPL
doesn't (even though really the people making accusations about others
should have to prove it rather than having the accused prove their
innocence).

There is only one spot in the GPLwhere there is a requirement that *any*
source code distributed be freely modifiable by licensees.  That spot is
Section 6.  If you read the license, you will note that Sections 1-3 do
not at any point require that anyone distributing KDE and Qt source code
grant distributees the right to modify any code (except, of course,
indirectly through Section 6), only Section 6 does that.  For example,
Section 2(b) says, if you modify a program, the derived work must "be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License", but does *not* specifically say that the resulting work
has to be modifiable by the recipient  -- it only refers to other terms
of the GPL, so if you want to say this statement requires the source
code to be modifiable, you must find this other term elsewhere in the
GPL.

Now, Section 6 says, in relevant part:

    Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program),
    the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy,
    distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
conditions. You
    may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights
    granted herein.

Now, the term "Program" is defined in the GPL to mean any work licensed
under the GPL, so it would not include X or Qt (if it did include X and
Qt, you could not comply, b/c neither the X Consortium nor Troll Tech
issues such a license).  So, this does not pose a problem for KDE/Qt
programs.

Can somone tell me what I have missed?  In other words, can someone do
the following (general statements like "GPL requires it" or it's
"necessary" to be "under the GPL" are totally unresponsive):

    (1) quote a section of the GPL that requires Qt source code to be
modifiable,
and
    (2) explain, in as much detail as possible, showing all your
reasoning steps, why that particular phrase of the GPL requires that the
Qt source code be modifiable.

I think this is the crux of the issue, and I have framed it as best I
can.

Regards,

Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com

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