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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: New QPL online
From:       "Sergey I. Panov" <sipan () mit ! edu>
Date:       1999-03-12 13:59:49
[Download RAW message or body]

Kevin:
> 
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> >     On closer inspection I see that section 6c is not incompatible
> >     because it is governed by section 6.
> > 
> > I see what you mean, but I do not think it avoids the problem.
> > The reason is this:
> > 
> > Under the GPL, you have permission to distribute copies when you want
> > to.  You can give copies to John and Elaine, and (at least if those
> > copies include the source) you are not ever required give any copies
> > to anyone else.  (*They* have the right to redistribute if they wish,
> > but that is a separate issue.)
> > 
> > So the restriction imposed by the QPL that you must give a copy' to
> > Troll Tech does still impose a further requirement on your GPL-covered
> > code.
> 
> Ahh...  I get it now.  I never noticed that it made no distinction
> between distribution with source and distribution without source.
> I had somehow interpreted that section to govern when the item is
> distributed without source.

I hate to get involved here, but I have an impression that the matter
is quite complicated and that you might be interpreting things in a
way perpendicular to the way I see it.

 Does 6c apply to the code that uses Qt or to the private
modifications of Qt?

  If it is a first, then there is a problem, if it is the second then
it does not apply and additional restrictions to your GPL code (Qt
extensions can not be GPL). Also, if it applies to software that uses
Qt, it is intentional (to prevent in-house development and private
circle distributions with QPLed Qt) and I doubt you can convince
Trolls to change it. I do not think it is bad -- just incompatible
with GPL.  I also disagree with RMS that it is an important freedom we
should defend.  Secret in-house development with GPL is probably OK,
but the private circle distributions of the GPL based sofware should
be restricted, at least in the case when money are involved, source
code is not passed along or non-discloser agreement is signed.

 Sergey

PS: I do not know why I get involved. I personally do not care about
QPL -- GPL compatibility anymore. I was watching that discussion out
of curiosity.

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