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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP () dfo-mpo ! gc ! ca>
Date:       2000-08-15 18:26:35
[Download RAW message or body]


mosfet wrote:

> If Debian could get it through it's head that it has no right 

I don't know what that means.

>                                                               nor legal
> basis 

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html

    Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a
    GPL-covered program and Qt and link them together, no matter how.

    However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you
    want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can
    easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program
    by adding a notice like this to it:

      As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
      with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you
      follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
      software in the executable aside from Qt.

    You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for
    the program. Add it in the source files, after the notice
    that says the program is covered by the GNU GPL.

>       to require free software developers to add explicit permission we
> would consider Debian a lot less biased. Your stuck in a mode where you
> feel free software developers should do whatever you want to their own
> licensing 

Only if they want Debian to redistribute it.
Debian is in no position to make demands of any sort, simply in a
position to accept the licensing terms in order to redistribute
(or not).

>           while not having any legal basis whatsoever. Foolishness.


You have said:

: Well, to be a little bit clearer it's not my nor anyone else's right to
: change the text of someone else's license at all. Even if it is only to
: add a clarification and doesn't change the rights given at all. Linking
: KDE apps to Qt is plainly legal, changing someone else's license text
: without their permission is plainly not (which is what was being asked
: of us).

If Debian redistributed GPL'ed code linked to Qt, then Debian
would be the ones making the `implicit assumption' that upstream
authors refuse to make explicitly.  Debian would therefore be the
ones effectively changing someone else's license (`We believe
that they meant we could do this even if they didn't say it').
That doesn't sound better to me.

Disclaimers: IANAL; I don't speak for Debian.
-- 
Peter Galbraith

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