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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action
From:       Don Sanders <don () sanders ! org>
Date:       2000-06-12 6:49:47
[Download RAW message or body]

I don't feel it's my place to suggest to TT that they release QT under the 
GPL, I hope you can respect this decision of mine. However would you consider 
the following proposal to be 'reasonable'.

1) TT releases the implementation of inline methods/functions in QT free 
edition into the public domain, and that TT releases the signatures of all 
methods/functions in QT free edition headers files into the public domain.

2) Debian as a whole accepts KDE has interpreted the GPL in a way that is 
valid and self consistent, yet inconsistent with the way Debian interprets 
the GPL. The KDE interpretation will be deprecated and the KDE project will 
not be free to use (that is merge with its own source code) GPLed software 
from other projects without first seeking (and receiving) permission from the 
authors of that other software.


Notes:
I suggest (1) because I think this meets all the requirements listed in the 
email of yours that I referenced earlier.

I believe (1) is required in order for users of QT free edition to be allowed 
to distribute their (QT reliant) software in binary form. This is not 
specifically a GPL/QPL issue but rather a QT free edition sanity check. This 
would not require any modification to the QPL, rather an additional 
clarifying statement from TT would be warranted, perhaps this could be made 
in the QT free edition header files.

(2) contains a written form of what appears to be KDE's unwritten policy.

I understand that even if Debian accepts the above proposal as reasonable 
certain dependencies/parts of KDE may not be included in Debian for 
exceptional reasons (eg mimelib in kdesupport but I don't want to get bogged 
down in details).

I believe TT is very happy with the QPL and that they have no intention to 
GPL QT so please let's not get stuck on that issue. I also believe expecting 
KDE to amend the licensing agreements on its GPLed software to be unrealistic.

I realize this proposal is not everything Debian wants, but I am serious 
about resolving the issue via this proposal.

BFN,
Don.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:08:43PM +1000, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Hello Joseph,
> >
> > If TT could be convinced to release the inline functions defined in QT
> > header files under the GPL (or a freer license), would that resolve the
> > legal situation in your view? Would that be enough to satisfy Debian as a
> > whole?
>
> They've said they wouldn't do that.  According to our best guess, it also
> wouldn't work.  But that's not going to stop anyone from insisting that's
> all Troll had to do.
>
> If Troll wants to muck around with licenses more, they might as well just
> make the QPL compatible since that's the intent of such a modification to
> the header license.  Changing the header license is going to leave a lot
> of people believing that Troll and KDE are trying to circumvent the GPL,
> myself included.
>
> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.  Especially since the changes
> I proposed aren't exactly going to damage Troll's profits.
>
> > If the inline functions are not enough could you please define exactly
> > what portions of the source code have to be freer?
>
> The GPL says that the entire work needs to be available under its terms in
> order to distribute a binary.  So far as we can tell, this would include a
> library such as Qt.
>
> UNLESS of course we consider Qt a system library, then binaries may be
> distributed as long as we don't distribute them together.  (It's our
> opinion that this would mean in the same distribution/CD..)
>
> > I will be in touch with some TT people in a couple of weeks so I can ask
> > them about this in person, (but only if this really is the critical
> > issue).
>
> If you're actually serious about trying to resolve the issue, I'll give
> the QPL and GPL one more pass under the microscope and apply a large
> hammer to it (my standard software repair method) so it works.  But if
> you're not dead serious about trying to get them to adopt a few reasonable
> changes, it's really not worth my time - I have much larger projects with
> a much higher chance of success that need every bit of time I can spare.
>
> Still, I believe the problems which plague KDE in most people's minds have
> gone on long enough.  For the most part there are no weekly flamewars
> anymore, they're more like 4-6 monthly and they're a fraction of what they
> were before.  Just about everyone has their opinion now and most people
> aren't interested in arguing about it anymore.  I want this resolved if
> nothing else so I don't have to hear about it anymore.

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