[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 20:21:54
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> mosfet wrote:
> 
> > Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Please ask RMS to update his web page then.  If he believes this
> this firmly, he can help by clarying his position on his web page.
> 

Sure, that would be nice.

> (Richard, the issue is that the FSF web site says that the QPL
> and GPL are incompatible (and code you write yourself under the
> GPL must also carry the explicit exemption to link to Qt), and
> that you have recently expressed the opinion that it was okay
> after all to redistribute GPL code that links to Qt if the
> application was designed to link with Qt in the first place,
> e.g. most of KDE excluding third-party GPLed applications ported
> to Qt)
> 
> > And this was for third party code, now Debian is being like this about
> > free, GPL code written by TrollTech themselves.
> 
> Third party in the sense in the sense that KDE did not write Qt,
> not in the sense of using someone elses GPLed code and porting it
> to Qt.
>

Debian does not allow anyone to use Qt without exceptions. KDE/Qt
developers writing code specifically for KDE/Qt, TrollTech writing GPL
code themselves, or people integrating GPL code in their apps. In
actuality all three appear legal, but I'm not pushing the third.
 
> Many free software developers are sloppy about licensing issues
> because they don't care about them (It took me years to care
> about it, even reusing some Emacs GPLed code in my then non-GPLed
> elisp stuff; I've learned the importance of this issue since
> then).  Letting an implicit permission stand makes it that much
> easier that some developer will come along and reuse someone
> else's GPL code in their own GPL (plus implicit permission to
> link to Qt) application, thinking they are both GPLed so it's
> okay (I'm not talking something big like kghostview here, but
> reusing functions instead of recoding).  But there's a problem,
> you also think this _is_ okay.  So as soon as we accept this
> view, the issue becomes very muddy indeed.
>

Let's not mix subjects here. I am specifically talking about Qt
Designer, written completely by TrollTech, and dozens of KDE
applications written from scratch.

As far as KDE goes, I've offered several times to review the code for
licenses, and actually another KDE developer is formulating a list of
the origins for each and every application. So far Debian has no
response to this, except that they don't care and they won't carry
anything KDE unless their demands are met - even if we go through code
line by line to assure it's origin (something we are not required to do
at all).
 
> Personally, I would be very happy if RMS changed his web page
> accordingly.  But I'd also be very afraid of this weakening the
> GPL in the future.  If it were discovered that GPLed code that be
> reused in a GPL+implicit-permision application years down the
> road, you would probably be the first to complain that it's too
> difficult to track down the original author for permission so
> let's just assume it's okay.  You have said as much about KDE.
>

It's not a weakening of the GPL. What's legal is legal no matter what
people say or are willing to admit. Just because you ignore something
about the GPL you personally don't like (Debian's strategy), that
doesn't change a thing. The fact of the matter is not using exceptions
is perfectly legal (esp. for code originally designed for KDE/Qt, but
even for code that is not) for a variety of reasons. The one that is
nicest to the FSF is the intent thing we have been talking about, which
is a very big part of copyright and licensing laws. Other less
attractive but perfectly valid legal stances would be that the license
grants the user to use the software, and most countries laws allow for
the user to do anything required to reasonably use their product
(obviously including linking to a required lib). The harshest stance
would be that the GPL cannot legally extend over dynamic linking, no
matter what it says. This not only means that you can take GPL code and
link it to whatever you please, but that a GPL'ed library provides no
real legal protection against commercial vendors using you library for
proprietary apps. So far two companies have had lawyers review the GPL
and come to this conclusion: Troll Tech because it would of liked to GPL
Qt but cannot, and Lineo for their embedded products. I'm not pushing
this stance ;-)

> Peter Galbraith

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