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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-08-15 18:29:51
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> mosfet wrote:
> 
> > If Debian could get it through it's head that it has no right
> 
> I don't know what that means.

Debian has no justifiable right to demand free software developers like
KDE or in this case Troll Tech make unnecessary changes to their
licensing with no legal basis whatsoever.

> 
> >                                                               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.
>

If you want to go by what the FSF has said, RMS has already stated that
it's evident that the usage of Qt is clearly allowed for code written
specifically for KDE/Qt. No clauses needed. Debian chooses not to listen
to him.

And this was for third party code, now Debian is being like this about
free, GPL code written by TrollTech themselves. Unbelievable, and says a
lot to people like myself.
 
> >       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).
>

Sure, but then they shouldn't be upset when they are called biased and
ignorant when they continue to refuse free software that is completely
legal.
 
> >           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.
>

This is insane. You are not making any unreasonable asumption when
linking code written for KDE/Qt with KDE/Qt! The license doesn't say
specifically that you must plug your computer into the electrical outlet
to compile this software, but you do. Should we add a clause for that as
well?
  
> Disclaimers: IANAL; I don't speak for Debian.
> --
> Peter Galbraith

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