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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: A more serious QPL-1.0 problem
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1999-03-12 14:57:03
[Download RAW message or body]

"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
> 
>         I think a more serious GPL incompatibility of QPL-1.0 is
> QPL section 3b (my emphasis added):
> 
> |       b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
> |          license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to
> |          the initial developer of the Software to distribute your
> |          modification in future versions of the Software provided
> |          such versions remain available under these terms IN ADDITION
> |          TO ANY OTHER LICENSE(S) OF THE INITIAL DEVELOPER.
> 
>         This is a further restriction to the GPL, since the GPL does
> not require such a permission grant, and it is illegal to publish
> modifications to QPL'ed software without making such a grant.

No.  You can publish modifications under any license you want.
They just won't go into the official QT if they are not QPL.

To combine QT with an LGPLed work and distribute the whole as LGPL
would violate the QPL.  The same goes for most other licenses.

A QPL from TOG would be a different license by virtue of not having the
same "initial developer".
 
> [You can stop reading here if you want.  The rest of this is just
> more detail.]
> 
>         The problem with QPL-1.0 section 3b is not some minor technical
> quibble.  It is actually a huge fundamental difference for a reason that
> is not obvious at first.  If the QPL were widely adopted by others, it
> would break the software recycling that has made free software so much
> more efficient than proprietary software.  How?  Because it is illegal
> to combine two works that are covered by _just_ the QPL if the initial
> developer is different.
> 
>         Let's say that the Open Software Foundation decides to put
> Motif under the QPL with the Open Software Foundation designated as
> the initial developer.  Now let's say I want to produce a derivative
> work that is the Qt Library with the Motif Mrm resource management
> code merged in.  The result would be a derivative work of both Motif
> and Qt.  Satisfying all of the copying conditions for distributing
> this code would require satisfying the QPL's of both OSF and Troll:
> 
>         Troll's QPL requires that OSF grant permission for this work
>         to be distributed under any future Troll "license(s)", which
>         OSF's QPL does not do.  Distributing the combined work is
>         therefore an infringement of Troll's copyright.
> 
>         OSF's QPL requires that Troll grant permission for this work
>         to be distributed under any future Troll "license(s)", which
>         Troll's QPL does not do.  Distributing the combined work is
>         therefore also an infringement of OSF's copyright.
> 
>         Now OSF and Troll could get around this by granting additional
> permission for each other to distribute under all of each other's future
> copying conditions, but to make such a scheme applicable to the
> programming community as a whole, they would have to grant everyone
> such permissions, which is functionally the same as public domain.
> (Alternatively, they could modify the QPL, but that's the whole point.)
> 
>         Because widespread adoption of the QPL would outlaw the
> software sharing and recycling that drive free software (i.e., outlaw
> it within the QPL'ed software pool), I think this GPL incompatability
> should be treated as a serious fundamental problem with QPL-1.0, and
> not some minor technicality that perhaps the GPL should be modified to
> accomodate.
> 
> Side notes:
> 
>         1. Of course, the cause of QPL's mutual incompatibility is
> that the Initial Developer is different for different programs, which
> is why the GPL'ed permission grant for distribution under future
> versions of the GPL does not have the compatibility problem.
> 
>         2. The Mozilla Public License has the mutual incompatibility
> problem too, but in the MPL it only occurs if you need to comingle
> material from two MPL'ed sources in the same source file.
> 
>         3. The QPL's prohibition on distributing source code as anything
> other than the pristine version and separate modifications also
> forbids derivative works that combined two or more QPL'ed works.
> 
>         4. I am not a lawyer, so this should not be taken as legal
> advice.
> 
> Adam J. Richter     __     ______________   4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
> adam@yggdrasil.com     \ /                  San Jose, California 95129-1034
> +1 408 261-6630         | g g d r a s i l   United States of America
> fax +1 408 261-6631      "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."

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