[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:       Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date:       2000-06-19 7:13:30
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:38:14PM -0400, forge wrote:
> > 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.

After 3.5 years of hostility, more than 2 of that with me at the center?
I was optimistic then.


> > 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.

Principle has a lot to do with the reason why we don't accept implicit
licensing, The problems with making it explicit (or unnecessary) are what
concern me individually.


> > 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:

I'd have tacked "original" before the second instance of "Software".


> 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.

That's crazy enough (you'd have to spell out GNU General Public License
most likely) that it may just work.  I still think it could probably serve
with a rewrite though.



> 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.

This was my intent with the original drafts.


> 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.

If you seriously, honestly think there's a chance in hell that anybody at
Troll Tech is actually likely to take it seriously, I can put the QPL
through the wringer again and see what comes out.  I don't have your
optimism though, so don't expect any serious fight from me to see it
become more than a simple draft of what could end this.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

<Knghtbrd> it's too bad most old unices turned out y2k compliant
<Knghtbrd> because it means people will STILL BE RUNNING THEM in 30 years
           =p
<Knghtbrd> it would have been so much nicer if y2k effectively killed off
           hpux, aix, sunos, etc  ;>
<Espy> Knghtbrd: since when are PH-UX, aches, and solartus "old"?

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