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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: New QPL online
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1999-03-08 4:41:51
[Download RAW message or body]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>    I do not fully understand why 6c is a problem to people writing
>    software for the KDE. As soon as they release their software "to
>    the general public" 6c cannot apply and they therefore satisfy
>    the QPL if they license their code under the GPL.
> 
> The scenario where the issue arises is this:
> 
> Suppose A writes program P and releases it under the GPL plus the
> special exception of "permission to link with Qt".  Then B downloads P
> and has permission to use it under the terms of the GNU GPL.  This
> includes permission to make and run a modified version P' without ever
> releasing it.
> 
> When B links P' with Qt, the Qt conditions say he cannot do what the
> terms for P say he can do.  In other words, the QPL requirements
> contradict the permissions given for P by releasing it under the GPL.
> 
> The reason why I designed the GPL to permit people to make and run
> their own private modified versions is to respect privacy.  It is
> unacceptably intrusive to force people to publish all their modified
> versions.  Perhaps there are some special cases where such a
> requirement would be legitimate, but to apply it across the board is
> surely wrong.

This is a problem.  Sure Troll's intention is that if you value privacy
enough to close someone else's source then you should pay for it.  
I.e. QT Professional Edition ( $1,300 ).  A Similar concept to buying
special closed source permission from the author of a GPLed app.

This is in there to enforce Troll's conditions on Companies who use
QT to write apps which are only used internally.  Any ideas as to how 
to get around this ?

Note : I have started to look through the GPL for possible scams.
Now that GPLed software is starting to hurt the profits of huge
companies ( no names pleas ) They will be doing the same.

If I make a killer optimization of GCC then rather than sell it
I give it to every programer who pays the fee to join my exclusive 
club.  NDA protected.
 
> There also seems to be a contradiction between 6a and the GPL:
> 
>     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.
> 
> This is similar in spirit to a requirement in the GPL, but it sets a
> stricter limit on the fee, and thus takes away some of the permission
> that the GPL gives.

$ 20 for the binery only CD.
$ 55,923,489.  For the Source code.

That is efectively a closed source program.  The GPL may alow 
such a scam.  The "no charge beyond data transfer makes it most
profitable for distributers to do what RedHat dose.  Source code
and Binarys in the same box.  

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

It seams to me that both sections have the same intent but the Troll
version was writen in the context of cheap internet access while the
GPL was writen in the context of software on diskets.

Solution.  A reworded 6c ( Don't shoot me ... pleas :)

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 or making a copy on the same
    medium on which the Executeble was recived.
                                      
Note it is possible to come up with a proprietary disk and a 
special drive which is only used for distributing source code.  
Both of which cost a ridiculous som.  This is one way truly 
evil people will try to get around the GPL.  Any idea when
GPL-3.0 will be ready and can this provision be in it ?

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