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

List:       kde-linux
Subject:    Re: [kde-linux] Re: Qt/KDE licence issues
From:       Sean McGlynn <sean () tmiau ! com>
Date:       2003-04-01 1:16:11
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 31 March 2003 22:28, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Montag, 31. März 2003 22:46, Sean McGlynn wrote:
> > I think some of the comments above are based on common misconceptions
> > about the GPL. There is nothing to stop anyone from using the GPL'd X11
> > version of Qt to "develop" commercial applications. The only thing they
> > cannot do is "distribute" those applications if they include the Qt
> > library.
>
> The problem here is not GPL, but Trolltechs commercial licence.
> If you started developing using the GPL licenced Qt, you cannot release
> your program using the commercial licence.
> That's a FAQ item on the TT site.

Hello Kevin,

Yeah, I've read the FAQ (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html 
for anyone interested). Things aren't quite as simple as you describe though. 
Take the original Quanta+. That was developed as a GPL'd KDE application 
using the GPL'd Qt library. Later on, two of the developers who held the 
copyright for the code decided that they wanted to create a commercial 
Qt-only version, which they did. Naturally the GPL'd version survived and 
thrived (http://quanta.sf.net), but that doesn't alter the fact that an 
application that was originally developed using a non-commercial Qt licence 
is now being distributed under a commercial Qt licence. There are other 
similar instances that you probably know of.

Like I said though, it is a *very* grey area, especially as regards internal 
organisational development and distribution. I can't think of a single case 
off the top of my head where these issues have really been tested. When 
Matthias Ettrich discussed the initial GPLing of Qt on Freshmeat 
(http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/180/) he used language like "It is 
clearly in the spirit of the GPL" and "This is how we interpret the GPL". He 
also said that RMS had offered "help and analysis" and Professor Eben Moglen 
(the FSF lawyer) had sent "comments". But he never says, due to the greyness 
of the area, IMHO, that it is illegal to use the GPL'd Qt for internal 
development.

One of the Q&A's from the Troll's FAQ says:

 <quote>
Q) Using the Free Edition, can I make software for internal use in my 
company/organization? 

A) The Qt Free Edition is not intended for such use; it is our policy that 
when you are using Qt for free, you should in return contribute to the free 
software community. If you cannot do that, you must get 
Professional/Enterprise Edition licenses instead. 
Note that software developed with Qt Free Edition must be distributed as 
free/Open Source software; i.e. the receivers must be free to give it to 
whomever they like. In-house distribution is no exception to this rule, of 
course. 
 </quote>

Again, the language is muddy! It doesn't simply say "no!", instead using 
phrases such as "not intended for such use" and "it is our policy". If M$ 
used such language, I'd class it as FUD, but as it's the Trolls (and I like 
the Trolls) I won't :-)

There are a few interesting and related questions in the GPL FAQ itself 
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)

 <quote>
Q) Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to 
the public?

A) The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are 
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing 
them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an 
organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever 
releasing it outside the organization. 
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL 
requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under 
the GPL. 
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain 
ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up 
to you. 
 </quote>

So, you can even modify Qt itself and use it internally within an 
organistion, without releasing your code.

 <quote>
Q) Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered 
program?

A) Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special 
permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you 
can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or 
elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software 
license. 

Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds 
of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.
 </quote>

This is especially relevant with regards to the answer in the above Trolltech 
FAQ.

 <quote>
Q) Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company 
"distribution"?

A) No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. 
When the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, 
that is distribution. In particular, distributing copies to contractors for 
use off-site is distribution.
 </quote>

Again, this is pertinent to the whole question of what constitutes 
"distribution". If you don't "distribute" code outside of your organisation 
then it is not covered by the rules of the GPL.

 <quote>
Q) If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that 
any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?

A) Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
 </quote>

Just thought I'd put this here as another point of discussion. If "any 
program that uses it" were to include the KDE libraries, then that would mean 
that our libraries should really be released under the GPL and not the LGPL. 
Don't really know how true this is, but if it was true and we did relicence 
(is it "licence" or "license"? - I can never get the usage right! :-), then 
that would prevent "anyone" from releasing commercial KDE software, whether 
they had a commercial Qt licence or not! Thus Trolltech would never be able 
to "hold commercial KDE development to ransom" as some people think they 
could do if KDE became the desktop of choice in the future. Some of these 
issues are also discussed (yet again) in this recent article on the dot 
(http://dot.kde.org/1049080057/).

> > Also, an organisation that distributes a commerical operating system,
> > such as IBM, Sun, HP etc., with their Unix variants and SuSE, Mandrake
> > etc., with their Linux variants, could simply buy one commercial Qt
> > licence, build the Qt library and distribute it with their OS. There
>
> Unless they negotiate a different licence like Borland did, the shipped Qt
> will be available to only one developer.
> Might work if the machine is intended for a single developer, but Unix
> machines often aren't.

I'll try and explain myself a bit better :-)
If you have a single commercial developer licence, you can, as I said, 
distribute a non-GPL'd Qt library as many times as you like, internally, 
externally, whatever. There are no royalty fees or runtime licence issues. 
Once it's out there in the open, anyone can link to it, just as anyone can 
link to a GPL'd version of the library. The GPL doesn't cover linking to 
libraries, it only covers "copying, distribution and modification" of GPL'd 
code. So, technically, I could create a private app, linked against this 
commercial Qt library, and then distribute my app as closed source. Others 
could then link my code against their copy of the library and run the 
resulting app, neither of which actions are restricted by the GPL. The only 
real sticking point, with regards to "public" distribution, would be whether 
the Qt header files, particularly the inline code, is considered to be part 
of the code covered by the GPL or merely a public interface. That's another 
grey area ;-) However, for "private" organisational code, I'm reasonably 
confident that the Troll's point of view is not legally binding. Of course, 
it would depend on which country you're in, what that country's particular 
copyright laws are and, most importantly, whether the judge trying your case 
prefers your lawyers face to that of the Trolltech lawyers :-)

> > are no per machine royalty fees and no per application restrictions.
> > You or I could then use the GPL'd X11 to create a commercial
> > application and sell it without releasing the code. The app would then
>
> No, TT's licence restrictions, see above

I'm too tired to even reread what I've just written, so please excuse typos 
or just mumbling rubbish! Also, I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit, 
because I'm certainly not in favour of public distribution of commercial apps 
that try to bend Qt's licensing rules. However, I *do* believe that internal 
development and distribution of Qt based apps is perfectly fine and does not 
contravene the GPL.

I don't think anyone can really give a definitive answer to all the Qt (or 
GPL in general) licensing questions. I don't even think there really "is" a 
definitive answer. Copyright law and enforcement is more of an art than a 
science, and it all comes down to the judges, at the end of the day, if it 
should ever go to court.

> Cheers,
> Kevin

Cheers,
Sean
-- 
Sean McGlynn
sean@tmiau.com

It has been pointed out to me that a recent email sig of mine
may have caused offence to accordion players. For this I humbly apologise :-)
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde-linux mailing list.
Account management:  http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-linux.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]