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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: RMS,Debian and KDE
From:       Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP () dfo-mpo ! gc ! ca>
Date:       2000-06-24 20:45:35
[Download RAW message or body]


mosfet wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > mosfet wrote:
> > 
> > > Requiring license changes that have no legal basis then calling KDE
> > > illegal does not help on my end ;-)
> > 
> > This RMS agreeing with `implicit intent' is a new twist that
> > wasn't present months ago.  I hope this can be clarified to
> > everyone's satisfaction.  I would be happy with such outcome with
> > reservations described below.
> > 
> > My only fear in such a big project using an implicit clause with
> > the GPL would be to later find that some developers have recycled
> > other GPLed code without permission.  That would put the project
> > in legal limbo just as now.  That reason alone should be enough
> > cause for KDE developers to use the Qt exception clause for any
> > future code.  Wouldn't it?
> 
> No, absolutely not. I personally won't accept a situation where we have
> to tell all the people hacking KDE apps for fun and to improve Linux
> that they have to modify their licenses just for Debian's sake. Again,
> this is not fair to KDE and the free software developers, 

I'm very sorry, but now you lost me.

1- You are saying that the GPL is fine for KDE because KDE
   authors give implicit agreement that (contrary to the terms of
   the GPL) linking to Qt is fine.

2- I'm asking for you all to _clarify_ this point by adding one
   line to your license (e.g. `It's okay to link to Qt')

3- You refuse to ask KDE authors to _modify_ their license.

Do you mean `modify' as in spend 30 seconds editing the license
file to add a clarification that while KDE was always been under
the GPL, it was always also implied that linking to Qt is fine?
(The Lyx project did this at one point too you know, add a
clarification about linking to XForms) 

Or do you mean `modify' as in _changing_ the terms of the license
to allow linking against Qt?  (Yes, that would be harder to accomplish)

I'm not asking you to change the terms of the license since you
say there's no need to do so (according to RMS).  I'm only asking
you to explicitely state what you say is already implied.
There's no need to contact hundreds of past contributors and ask
them because you say that they have _already_ given implied
permission.  If you are arguing that you can't add the
clarification because you'd have to contact hundreds of
contributors to ask them, then that means that they _haven't_
given implied permission.  So have they, or haven't they?
 
>                                                           nor has it a
> legal basis.

Huh?
Since the required permission to link to Qt is _implied_, why is
there no legal basis in making it explicit?

> This issue seems mostly based on mistrust on Debian's part. 

Debian is being very careful and tries to keep to its standards.
We have no big bucks to make from assuming it's okay because we
probably won't get sued.

>                                                             If code is
> copyrighted by someone the original developer maintains that copyright.
> If code comes from a third party the original copyright will still be
> there, even if it's used elsewhere. Nobody - KDE or not - should be
> removing anyone's copyright statement.

`should' being the operative word.

In any case, it shouldn't be an issue for KDE right?  Any use in
KDE of third party GPL code would be breaking its license, so
there can't be any in KDE. Except that there _is_ some third
party code in KDE.  I wonder why Debian has doubts concerning
some KDE developers being sloppy about interpreting the GPL and
would want the implied made explicit.  Perhaps Debian's alleged
mistrust is warranted since KDE is _still_ using third party GPL
code.  Is your position that it's okay until those authors tell
you otherwise?  In such a case, you'd understand why Debian would
want to distance itself from that position.

Peter

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