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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Qt vs. X Licensing (Was Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: can normal programs be
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-14 18:28:16
[Download RAW message or body]

"Adam J. Richter" wrote:

> >> >>         The GPL's terms do not apply to the XFree code.  What is imporant
> >> >> is that the XFree code is never more restricted than than the GPL code
> >> >> (i.e., it grants a supserset of the permissions) so that distributing
> >> >> the combined work satisfies section 2b of the GPL, "licensed as a
> >> >> whole [...] under the terms of [the GPL]."
> >>
> >> >Well, I am sorry, but although I see a lot of room for ambiguity in the GPL, I see as
> >> >completely wrong an interpretation that equates "licensed as a whole . . . under the terms
> >> >of this License" to meaning "licensed as a whole . . . under terms which RMS approves as
> >> >not being in conflict with this License".  Obviously the phrase "under the terms of this
> >> >License" needs to be given meaning, and there are only two options as far as I can tell:
> >> >(1) it means "licensed under the GPL", meaning each and every provision of the GPL has to
> >> >apply to it (and hence XFree code could never be linked with GPL code), or (2) it means
> >> >there are specific provisions of the GPL which impose requirements on the code (which is my
> >> >interpretation) *but* then you need to go to the next step of finding those specific
> >> >provisions in the GPL, which I have done in my recent e-mail with the title "Qt Free
> >> >Edition License vs. XFree License".  You cannot just say "all the restrictions" or what
> >> >not, that is not supported by the language.
> >>
> >>         #2 is close to what I am trying to convey to you, although I
> >> do not necessarily agree with your claimed limitation to "specific
> >> provisions" (for example, a restriction can be infered from a number
> >> of provisions working in combination).
>
> >OK, so why don't you point out which provisions act in combination, how they act in combination
> >and what that combination is. I mean the GPL isn't that long, why can't you find the terms that
> >are being violated?
>
>         First of all, we were not arguing about a particular situation
> where the GPL was being violated.

Oh, I think it is, with the situation being KDE programs.

> However, I will give you an example
> of one to which you have mentioned in your discussions with others
> on this forum.  It violates the GPL to distribte a GPL'ed program
> linked with QPL'ed software (up to and including QPL 0.91) because
> section 2 of the GPL grants permission to distribute modified source
> code,

Hmmm, that only applies to programs licensed under the GPL, which Qt isn't.

> including in integrated form (since this is not explicitly excluded)
> and the section 2b of the GPL requires that the derivative work be
> "licensed as a whole [...] under the terms of [the GPL]",

Well, you have again identified the crux of the issue, what does that "licensed . . . under the
terms of [the GPL]" mean, but have again not refined it.  I guess you don't know what you think it
means :-) .  Since we are in "repeat" mode, let me "repeat" that if that means the combined work
has to be "licensed" under the GPL, you can't link with X code, and virtually everyone (including
Debian) is in serious violation of the GPL.

> but the QPL
> prohibits allowing integrated source because it requires that the
> source be distributed in a way where the original source is distinct
> from the changes.

Well, nobody that I am aware of is debating this.  I agree you can't integrate Qt source code with
GPL source code.  However, the reason I started the various threads I have (going back to October)
is because many people argue that you cannot distribute a KDE program without violating the GPL,
period.  It is this argument that I have been debating, if that helps clarify my position.  Why you
are debating me on this point, I cannot answer.

> So, the obeying just the GPL is not equivalent to
> obeying the copying conditions of each component of the derivative work,
> so the work has not been "licensed as a whole [...] under the terms of
> [the GPL]", so distribution of the derivative work is prohibited by
> section 4 of the GPL.
>
> >> I especially do not understand
> >> where your claimed prohibition against referenceing "all of the
> >> restrictions" comes from.
>
> >Because if all of the restrictions apply then we are in situation (1),
>
>         No.  It's not that all of the restrictions apply to every
> single component of the derivative work.  It is that if you follow
> all of the restrictions of the GPL, then you will never be violating
> any of the restrictions of any individual components.  Some of the
> copying conditions might be a subset of the GPL's restrictions, such
> as the XFree86 copying conditions.

Well, we'll just disagree on this one.  I think we have entered "repeat" mode.

> >when you agreed we are
> >in situation (2).  Also, if you claim that something violates a license, you should be able to
> >point to the provision that has been violated.  This you have not done.
>
> >> Please quote or identify as best you can
> >> the section of US Code, federal regulations, or court precedent that
> >> you are refering to.
>
> >He he.
>
>         If you are just going to make up bogus legal doctrines, then
> you're wasting the time of everybody on this list.

Strong words.  Is there a particular legal doctrine I have "made up" that is "bogus"?  Perhaps the
doctrine that you interpret a document according to its words rather than the e-mails sent by one
of the authors seven years after the document became a public document, perhaps you find this
one "bogus"?

It's pretty frustrating to be in this debate and be wrong, and while it would be big I don't expect
anybody on this list to admit it.  But I do have to say that before I started my debates I spent a
good deal of time with the GPL trying to figure out what it meant; I didn't just jump into the fray
based on some prior notion of what the GPL says or based on an emotional response to a posting.
Most people debating the GPL, I am convinced, have not read it, or if they did never really
understood it.

> I will probably no longer be able to prioritize sufficient time to respond to your
> postings.

OK.

> I suggest you talk to a copyright lawyer about the GPL.

Regards,

Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com
writing as a layperson, as always on these lists

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