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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: KDE tries to silence editorial's author
From:       forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2000-06-18 22:38:14
[Download RAW message or body]

> You're far more optimistic than I am.  Part of the KDE project?  Ick,
> don't say that.  I just came in here to help people wash up muddy
> licenses (or so I thought..)

I am a pessimist by upbringing actually.  ( I live in Jamaica.  The 
weather is nice, the women are beautiful and everything else tries to
make you hide behind the excellent Rum and Ganja :).  My optimism is
born of the notion that this might all work out.
 
> Therefore we're paranoid bastards.  It's not political, it's us covering
> our collective asses so to speak.  As for me personally, um, well, I
> didn't let ITAR stop me from distributing strong crypto worldwide, do you
> think a silly little patent interfere with my life?  Good guess.

Good.  So keep focused on why you do this.  It's the principle.  
Nothing more or less.

> A couple in sections 3 and 4, 6(c) could be real easily fixed by changing
> the wording a bit to allow pretty much anyone access to the source code if
> the binaries are distributed.

3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
modifications, in a form that is
  separate from the Software, such as patches. The following
restrictions apply to modifications:

3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your 
modifications, in a form that is easily distinguishable from the 
Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to 
modifications:

--
6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the 
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, 
then you must supply one.

6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the 
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, 
then you must supply one.  For items under the GPL we may instead 
check to see weather your distribution is in compliance with the 
terms of the GPL.  This includes not obstructing anyone who may 
wish to redistribute.

---
The changes to section 3 are cosmetic but make it a little clearer 
that patches are mearly preferred.  pointing to the original source 
and instruction on running "diff" would also work.

The changes to 6c are a little crude.  The idea is that compliance 
with the GPL becomes something Troll can investigate since 
violating the GPL on something linked to QT means also violating 
the QPL.  sending source code to all the employees for your 
internal custom apps is not something companies do.  least of all 
ones likely to try cheating Troll out of a few bucks.

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