Re: KDE not in Debian?
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> True. However, the BSD license allows relicensing (sort of), as long
> as its terms are respected.
Not true, although IANAL, and neither are you. Only the copyright holder
is allowed to change the terms of the license. If take a GPLd package
and find a source file within separately licensed under the BSDL (not a
rare event), that individual file can be redistributed under the terms
of the BSDL.
Section 2, as well as other sections, talks about licensing as a
"whole". This doesn't mean that every file within the package must be
GPL, only that the package itself, as a whole, be under the GPL. To my
reading, the intent and wording of 2b is that their can be no licensing
fee, and you license it to third parties according to the terms of the
GPL.
> Not Qt! Qt is still under the QPL, not the GPL, and there is no way
> to "mesh" the requirements of the QPL and the GPL coherently.
If you take that argument, then there is no way to mesh the requirements
of the GPL and the BSDL. After all, the BSDL requires that you give a
copy of its permissions and warranties to third parties, which is over
and above the requirements of the GPL.
> Since you aren't following section 2, you can't distribute binaries.
Yes I am. No you're not. Yes I am. No you're not. Abuse is down the
hall.
> Motif is a component on every Solaris system. Therefore, you don't
> have to distribute Motif source code, binaries, dynamic libraries, or
> whatever with your GPLed Motif program, since they are provided with
> every Solaris system. Thus, you can link a GPLed program to Motif on
> Solaris, since Solaris users wanting to use your binary can use it
> without having to download Motif, and people wanting to recompile it
> can link with the Solaris-provided Motif libraries. This is
> specifically allowed by section 3. However, Sun isn't allowed to
> integrate your app into Solaris; this would nullify section 3.
>
> On Debian, it's a different matter. Motif is not a system component
> of Debian, and therefore section 3 does not apply. I would assert
> that, therefore, it isn't possible to distribute binaries of GPLed
> Motif apps for Debian.
What a bizarre conclusion! The GPL specifically says "the act of running
the Program is not restricted". But *running* a given GPL act on Solaris
is legal but on Debian is illegal (in the absence of lesstif). Yet the
user is doing exactly the same thing!
> Except that (for example) the GPL does not restrict your right to make
> modifications that you keep for your own private use only, while the
> QPL requires you to release anything you do based on Qt Free Edition
> to Troll Tech upon request.
>
> Therefore, I can take kgv and make it foo bars, which it normally
> doesn't do; this change, let's say, only requires a change to the
> (k)gv side, not to Qt. I can decide not to give my modified copy to
> anyone. But if someone at Troll hears about what I've done, they can
> demand a copy, and I must comply.
This is not what the QPL means. Troll Tech has admitted that this clause
can be misunderstood, but Copyright Law itself takes precedence. Under
Copyright Law (in the US and Norway, at least), people are allowed to
keep their private copies private.
David Johnson
Reply to: