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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1
From:       Anthony Towns <aj () azure ! humbug ! org ! au>
Date:       1998-12-27 17:09:23
[Download RAW message or body]


(short summary: I don't have any real complaints (but I'm not Trolltech),
so if you're not interested in legal nitpicking from someone who's not
even a lawyer, skip this message.)

On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:16:42AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>                 THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 0.92+knghtbrd1
>                  Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
>                      Everyone is permitted to copy and
>                      distribute this license document.

(and base new licenses upon it? ;)

>      c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with this
>      license.

To my reading, this sentence doesn't make sense -- you seem to be saying that
the license's license has to be QPL.

Is this meant to mean ``Modifications must be licensed under the QPL'' or
``Modifications must be licensed under a license no more restrictive than
the QPL'' or ``...no less restrictive than the QPL'' or...?

It would seem better to separate this clause into ``Modifications may
be made and distributed under the QPL'' and something along the lines
of ``The copyright holder (that's trolltech) is granted permission to
rerelease the Software (that's anything under the QPL in particular
modified versions of Qt) under alternate terms of their choosing.''
Probably with a note that adds that such rereleasing doesn't invalidate
the current license (ie the QPL itself).

If people want to play nice with trolltech, they just leave the QPL intact.
If not, they can then use section 7 to distribute it under the GPL.

>    5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
>    compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
>    by others.
> 
> # [ Is this necessary?  In my outline of the changes I planned to make to
> #   v.92 I asked that.  I believe that it is not unreasonable and does not
> #   cause any real harm or otherwise cause the software not to be free under
> #   any definition I can think of, including the DFSG.  And besides, I think
> #   it's a good idea to say something like it anyway. ]
> 
> 
>    6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
>    software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
>    Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
>    requirements:

These two items are confusing when separated like this -- you go
``Huh? Didn't I just read that?'' Well, I do anyway. Could they be
merged, or the difference (use v distribution) be put a little earlier
in the sentence?

>      a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms
>      of these items are also able to receive and use the complete
>      machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond
>      the costs of data transfer.

A note as to what "source code" means (as per in the GPL) would probably
be good here.

>      b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use
>      and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in
>      both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must
>      be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be
>      able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.

This isn't equivalent to requiring Open Source -- you can, for example,
disallow people to charge any money at all for distributing your program,
and still link with Qt according to this. That's probably quite reasonable
though. If it's not, something along the lines of ``Such software must be
made available under a license conforming to the Open Source Definition''
might be usable.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

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