[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:       2000-06-12 13:05:41
[Download RAW message or body]

The whole argument against QPL hinges on a single word.  If it's
possible to
explain that "distribute" means the same thing in QT 6.2 as it dose in
the 
GPL.  This is how I interpret it but the Debian people see it as having
a 
different meaning.  

Don Sanders wrote:
> 
> 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]