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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
From:       Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date:       2000-08-16 7:24:38
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 07:37:54PM -0400, Steve Hutton 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.
> 
> Simply repeating this over and over won't make it true.  It's
> _one_opinion_, and the law give no extra weight to the author
> of a license when it comes time to interpret the license.  There's
> no room for "what I really meant when I wrote that was..."

This is the FSF's opinion.  It's also Debian's opinion.  And it's Red
Hat's opinion as well.  (though they'll give you an excuse about "market
forces" making them ignore these issues until they are resolved one way or
the other..  which of course will never happen...)


It's funny to read someone argue that there is no room for "what I really
meant was..." given that is precisely what you expect Debian to accept in
the case of GPL and QPL compatibility.  We don't think they are.  And if
it's not enough to say "but we meant..." then it's not.  And regardless of
the legal standings of whether or not that will hold, Debian always has
and still does require each item of the DFSG to be explicitly met for
inclusion into main.  We also apply the same standard of explicit
compatibility in cases where licenses are mixed.  If the licenses aren't
compatible at face value, they do not meet our requirements.

The GPL and QPL are a specific case where they're not.  We asked for the
permission in writing.  We never got it.  To this date, we have yet to
receive explicit permission to distribute KDE with Qt.  Nor will it ever
be granted if people such as mosfet have anything to say about it.  The
fact that KDE developers have gone on public record stating flatly that
they have not and will not give any permission of any sort to link Qt
kinda deflates the whole implicit permission argument.  Unless you're a
KDE supporter who wants to rag on Debian of course, in which case speaking
with a forked tongue is acceptable because Debian is The Enemy.

Why is KDE not in Debian?  Because KDE won't do what Debian requires of
all packages - provide a clear license that allows Debian to do what
Debian does.  And Debian isn't going to change or bend the rules just
because KDE people feel like being assholes about it and then accusing us
of refusing to work with them.

KDE will never be in Debian.  I don't have to see to that.  KDE's biggest
proponents will do it and blame us for it.  Why the hell do you think I
refuse to do anything more for KDE?  I'm tired of being blamed by KDE and
Debian alike for not resolving the problem.  And being in the Debian camp,
I happen to agree with Debian.  We are under NO OBLIGATION to package KDE.
And KDE developers and supporters want to make it as hard as possible for
us to do so, demanding that we change our policies for them.


Frankly, I don't trust KDE.  KDE has a history of taking code and asking
permission later (or rather, NOT asking for permission.  Obviously
forgiveness is easier to get than permission..)  There are several non-KDE
apps that have been ported (kghostview, kmidi, kfloppy to name the first
three that come to mind) and no attempt has been made to do a damned thing
about them by KDE.  Further, I happen to know that code has been borrowed
by native KDE applications from other GPL'd applications.  Some of it is
even uncredited!  And yet, I'm supposed to trust that KDE has the right to
grant permission to link code they don't own to Qt?

KDE is not, nor have they ever really been, acting in good faith.


> BTW, if someone takes my GPL'd code and links it with QT
> without my permission, and then releases the entire source
> for the resulting work under the GPL & QPL, how has my freedom,
> or the freedom of the users of either piece of software been comprised?
> 
> I can view the second author's modifications to my work, 
> and I can reuse them or derive from them if I like, even if
> those modifications included changes to QT.  The users of
> my software have the exact same right.
> 
> Nobody has comprimised any freedom, unless your reason
> for choosing the GPL was:
> 
> "You may re-use this code as long as you make all my original
> sources availble when you do so, and you must make the sources
> to your additions available, AND, you must insure that anyone who
> further derives from your derviation will not suffer through the horrible
> inconvenience of having to distribute any portion of that work
> through a PATCH(!)"
> 
> Is that what Free software is about these days?

It's what the GPL is about.  Read it sometime.  The GPL demands that you
never have to jump through any other hoops than the ones it outlines.
Sometimes that's a real PITA (Richard and I have "discussed" (for some
versions of "discuss", I think the discussions usually ended with him
being rather annoyed..) why this is sometimes not a good thing) but at
least as often as it's been annoying it's been helpful.

Nevertheless, the GPL is the GPL.  If you don't like that about the GPL,
don't use the GPL.  If you don't like that with regard specifically to Qt,
the FSF website includes instructions on how you may work around this
touchy situation (pending of course Troll's new license which I admit I am
cynnical about, but I'll reserve judgement until I read it - if it's ever
there to read of course..)

-- 
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

<lux> if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the
      computer masochists

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