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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Qt Free Edition License vs. XFree License
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-14 1:51:35
[Download RAW message or body]

Raul Miller wrote:

> > > But section 2 says that you have the right to modify the GPLed work
> > > ("the program"), creating a work based on the program provided that
> > > you release the word based on the program under the GPL (which, in the
> > > context you create would also be called "the program").
>
> Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > You have missed the point: what does it mean to say "under the GPL"?
> > Gee, I guess every time I ask, what does it mean to say "under the
> > GPL", and give a reasoned analysis of what I think it means, you
> > will respond, it means "under the GPL". Well, I have already stated
> > multiple times what I think the three options are for interpreting
> > this, the response above is tautological and vacuous.
>
> The specific language is:
>
>     b) You must cause any work that you 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.
>
> This has to mean that all of the terms of the GPL are present in
> the license which makes the work available to all third parties.

Ahhh-hahh.  This is *close* to one of the plausible interpretations of the
GPL (the one saying the entire source code must be licensed under the GPL,
but you are essentially saying the same thing, I think); although I don't
think it is the most plausible one, at least it is plausible.  However, if
you use this interpretation, this goes back to my original point, how can X
code be OK.  X code does not have "all of the terms of the GPL" (just to pick
one, it does not require distributing full source code along with binaries).

I take your position to be as follows:

    (1)  From our parallel debate: writing a program, A, so that it requires
another program, B, to run means that distributing the source code to "A" is
"in substance", for purposes of copyright law, distributing the source code
to B.  So, for example, writing gcc so that it requires MS Windows (let's
call this "Windows gcc") to run means that distributing the source code to
Windows gcc is "in substance" distributing the source code to MS Windows.

    (2)  Under Section 2(b), which you quote above, "all of the terms of the
GPL" must apply to the entire work, including the Windows part.

Well, now, the conclusion is obvious.  Distributing Windows gcc requires
distributing the source code to Windows (and, oh yes, the source code must be
modifiable).  Please don't respond with a reference to Section 3, that most
obviously applies only to binary distributions, and Windows gcc is being
distributed in source code.  I suppose now that your back is in a corner you
will just drop this thread and make your points again next time with someone
that doesn't see their faults?

> If you disagree there's no point in discussing the matter: this
> is a legal document, it's a simple phrase, get a legal interpretation
> of what that phrase means.

I already have one, thank you.  Perhaps this is a department where your
analysis is lacking?  Clearly you do not see the repercussions of your own
arguments.

Regards,

Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com
writing as a lay person, as always on these lists

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