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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action
From:       forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2000-06-11 22:42:03
[Download RAW message or body]

Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 04:26:16PM -0400, forge wrote:
> > Another question.
> > What prevents Debian from including
> > QT, QT-KDE-ADDON, KDESUPPORT and KDELIBS ?
> > Is there now a conflict between the LGPL, QPL, and BSD licenses ?
> 
> Qt 2 is in main.  The rest has not been individually uploaded by any
> developer.
>
> > Maybe they would have included those things if they were sincere ?
> > As for changing the license.  There really is no reason to bother
> > unless you think it is a *real* legal problem.
> 
> Debian does not include packages just because a few people (even when a
> few people means a great many) unless someone steps up to the plate to
> actually do the packaging.

Exactly.  So the point is nobody in Debian cares enough to package the 
core pieces of KDE which are without conflict and those applications
which are under none GPL licenses.  ( Artistic and BSD come to mind )

In the beginning there was a problem.  It took me a while to figure it 
out but linking GPL to QT-1.x is a problem if the GPLed code was not 
written for such linking or written by someone who doesn't want it
linked.

The only case of this happening of which I am aware is with "Kimp".  
The KDE developer ( singular ) in question took the Gimp team at it's 
word and never distributed Kimp.  Instead KDE created a whole new image 
program.

With the new QPL license even that problem goes away.  You can now link 
other people's GPLed code to QT without permission legally.  The KDE
teem
still doesn't do that because at best it is bad manners.  The argument
on
the other side is that the QPL has a restriction that the GPL doesn't
have
and linking to it is therefore in violation of the GPL.  This I disagree 
with.

Section 6.2 of the QPL only comes into play when the application linked
against QT is distributed without source code.  The GPL requires that no 
application *ever* be distributed without source.  Therefore the only 
possible ways for that provision to come into play are.

1. The application in question is not under the GPL but rather the BSD 
or some such permissive license.  No GPL violation there since the GPL
is
not involved.

2. The Application is licensed under the GPL in which case the GPL *and*
the QPL have both been violated and the GPL author will take you to
court 
while Troll Tech will collect it's tax.

3. The Lawyers defending the GPL and those defending QT have completely 
different definitions of what constitutes "distribution".

If there is a 4th scenario under which you can violate the QPL without 
violating the GPL, I would like to here about it.  Keep #3 in mind when 
you write this up because without such a scenario existing the entire 
core of the "KDE + QPL is a license paradox" argument comes to naught.

You see while Mathematicians can argue about Irisiteble forces,
immovable
objects, infinitely long rods and other purely theoretical concepts that 
don't really exist; Lawyers must deal only with what happens in the real 
world.  This is why there is no law against eating my own head.
 
It's nice of you to try but you will not succeed for for one ery simple 
reason.  Not all authors of KDE code can be contacted.  Sure the people
with accounts on cvs.kde.org can all be spoken with but I appear in the
source tree for a very small contribution.  I have never had a CVS
account.
If you grep the source tree for Email addresses you will be contacting
me 
at an address I no longer use ( how can usa.net attract 20 SPAMs a day
to 
a single mailbox, then demand web based Email reading with a new add for 
each message? ).

Many people are in similar positions and some have moved on to other 
things without a backward glance at kde.org or slashdot.  We would have
to
change the license and claim they consented by remaining silent.  It's 
possible that some forgotten contributor has died leaving a minor as
owner
of his code.  That would make any license change clearly illegal since a 
child can collect royalties but not sell the rights or give up
ownership.
( That's why Prisila Presly is wealthier than her daddy ever was ).

My lawyer read the licenses involved and some of the better arguments
and 
told me frankly.  "I can win if a GPL violation case goes to court but
not 
an unproved license change case."  Maybe other lawyers have different 
opinions.

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