[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:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-13 20:27:14
[Download RAW message or body]

"Adam J. Richter" wrote:

> >>>> = Adam
> >>>  = Andreas
> >>   = Adam
> >    = Andreas
>
> I was a little quick in resonding to Andreas most recent message
> and would like to respond in slightly more detail here:
>
> >>         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.
>
> >I guess that is so b/c you say so?  No support for this reading is needed, I guess, b/c
> >it is so obvious?  Again, you have left out what terms of the GPL need to apply, and
>
>         The GPL's terms do not apply to the XFree code.  What is imporant
> is that the XFree code is never more restricted than than the GPL code
> (i.e., it grants a supserset of the permissions) so that distributing
> the combined work satisfies section 2b of the GPL, "licensed as a
> whole [...] under the terms of [the GPL]."

Well, I am sorry, but although I see a lot of room for ambiguity in the GPL, I see as
completely wrong an interpretation that equates "licensed as a whole . . . under the terms
of this License" to meaning "licensed as a whole . . . under terms which RMS approves as
not being in conflict with this License".  Obviously the phrase "under the terms of this
License" needs to be given meaning, and there are only two options as far as I can tell:
(1) it means "licensed under the GPL", meaning each and every provision of the GPL has to
apply to it (and hence XFree code could never be linked with GPL code), or (2) it means
there are specific provisions of the GPL which impose requirements on the code (which is my
interpretation) *but* then you need to go to the next step of finding those specific
provisions in the GPL, which I have done in my recent e-mail with the title "Qt Free
Edition License vs. XFree License".  You cannot just say "all the restrictions" or what
not, that is not supported by the language.  You have to find the "terms of this License"
that apply to the code you want to distribute, enumerate them in a list, and then see if
what you want to do complies with each item in the list.

> In comparison, you cannot
> satisfy section 2b of the GPL with any of the QPL copying conditions
> up to now (up to and include 0.91) because they had additional
> restrictions, so the copying conditions that apply to the work as a
> whole are not equal to the GPL, and that is violating section 2b.

Regards,

Andreas Pour

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