Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
Joseph Carter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:18:45AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > The way I'm reading what you wrote is like so: > > > > - Troll Tech releasing GPLed code that links to Qt is legal > > (because implicit permission is granted). > > - But it's against Debian policy to accept the license if it's > > not made explicit. > > > > Is that a correct summary? > > If so, I disagree. If point 1 was true, Debian wouldn't have > > grounds for point 2. I'm assuming point 1 is wrong where you don't. > > There are many licenses that pass by -legal which essentially say one > thing and mean another. It is Debian's policy to take them at what they > say, rather than what they mean and seek clarification since everyone > benefits that way and at least in the case of things like pine the > assumption of what UW means compared to what they say has turned out to be > wrong. Fair enough. > > In a post to kde-licensing last night, you said: > > > > : Nobody here is going to question Red Hat should they include Qt Designer. > > : There is clearly and obviously no problem with doing so. Debian has a > > : policy problem with it though. > > > > You are effectively telling the world that implicit permission is > > fine and legal, but that we have some ungrounded (one could say > > random) policy against it. I disagree. Either we think it's > > legal or it isn't. > > It is. It's a bad idea to rely on it and any lawyer can tell you so and > give you a whole host of reasons beginning with it being a court's > determination rather than yours as to what permission if any is implicitly > granted. But it is legal. > > That doesn't mean Debian is willing to accept it. To much is totally > subjective that way and Debian has always insisted that the licenses be > cut and dry. KDE isn't and never will be. Okay then. It appears to me that we need to clarify this somewhere, perhaps on our web site. I have asked an upstream author to add an exemption paragraph to the GPL to link against XForms on the ground that redistribution was illegal. Now it turns out it's not really illegal, but a bad idea and against Debian policy. That's not quite the same thing and I now feel I was untruthful to the author. That's bad for me and bad for Debian. We need to be honest about these things. Peter
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:18:45AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission > > > > for > > > > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has > > > > no legal problems. > > > > > > Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems... > > > > Legally, no, no problems. > > > > > > > > Will it make it into Debian? Not unless: > > > > > > > > * someone wishes to package it > > > > * explicit permission is given > > > > > > Here you imply it does... > > > > I don't. I say flat out that it is Debian's policy > > that author's > > intent is not sufficient. > > The way I'm reading what you wrote is like so: > > - Troll Tech releasing GPLed code that links to Qt is legal > (because implicit permission is granted). > - But it's against Debian policy to accept the license if it's > not made explicit. > > Is that a correct summary? > If so, I disagree. If point 1 was true, Debian wouldn't have > grounds for point 2. I'm assuming point 1 is wrong where you don't. There are many licenses that pass by -legal which essentially say one thing and mean another. It is Debian's policy to take them at what they say, rather than what they mean and seek clarification since everyone benefits that way and at least in the case of things like pine the assumption of what UW means compared to what they say has turned out to be wrong. > In a post to kde-licensing last night, you said: > > : Nobody here is going to question Red Hat should they include Qt Designer. > : There is clearly and obviously no problem with doing so. Debian has a > : policy problem with it though. > > You are effectively telling the world that implicit permission is > fine and legal, but that we have some ungrounded (one could say > random) policy against it. I disagree. Either we think it's > legal or it isn't. It is. It's a bad idea to rely on it and any lawyer can tell you so and give you a whole host of reasons beginning with it being a court's determination rather than yours as to what permission if any is implicitly granted. But it is legal. That doesn't mean Debian is willing to accept it. To much is totally subjective that way and Debian has always insisted that the licenses be cut and dry. KDE isn't and never will be. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 It's not usually cost effective time wise to go do it. But if something's really pissing you off, you just go find the code and fix it and that's really cool. -- John Carmack, on the advantages of open source
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
Joseph Carter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for > > > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has > > > no legal problems. > > > > Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems... > > Legally, no, no problems. > > > > > Will it make it into Debian? Not unless: > > > > > > * someone wishes to package it > > > * explicit permission is given > > > > Here you imply it does... > > I don't. I say flat out that it is Debian's policy > that author's > intent is not sufficient. The way I'm reading what you wrote is like so: - Troll Tech releasing GPLed code that links to Qt is legal (because implicit permission is granted). - But it's against Debian policy to accept the license if it's not made explicit. Is that a correct summary? If so, I disagree. If point 1 was true, Debian wouldn't have grounds for point 2. I'm assuming point 1 is wrong where you don't. In a post to kde-licensing last night, you said: : Nobody here is going to question Red Hat should they include Qt Designer. : There is clearly and obviously no problem with doing so. Debian has a : policy problem with it though. You are effectively telling the world that implicit permission is fine and legal, but that we have some ungrounded (one could say random) policy against it. I disagree. Either we think it's legal or it isn't. Peter
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for > > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has > > no legal problems. > > Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems... Legally, no, no problems. > > Will it make it into Debian? Not unless: > > > > * someone wishes to package it > > * explicit permission is given > > Here you imply it does... I don't. I say flat out that it is Debian's policy (and always has been, conspiracy theories of Debian making up rules to keep KDE out aside since the policy existed before KDE was out in the first place) that author's intent is not sufficient. We nearly lost all ircII based clients (including one of them that I maintain - epic4) because of a license wording issue way back when early on in the ircII development. The license said no modifications. That restriction was lifted when the code changed hands. But it was never spelled out. When this came to light, the same ultimatum facing the majority of KDE was also given to ircII-based package maintainers and upstreams: The license needed to say what it meant or Debian wouldn't keep the packages. One Debian developer spent a couple afternoons tracking down the two people necessary to fix the license so the implicit permission granted when the code changed hands became explicit. It took about a week, but it wouldn't have happened without willingness on the part of the epic3 maintainer and the upstream developers (hop, phone, panasync, and guys who have long since left the picture) agreeing to just use a FreeBSD-style license and call it good. That'll never happen to KDE. Too many people are determined to hold out to the bitter end and make sure it never happens. And yeah, a couple of them are Debian people. But not most of them. > > * implicit permission becomes unnecessary > > I don't understand. The new QPL which was brought up just in time to silence protests resulting from my editorial and then vanish without a trace. Maybe it's being worked on. Maybe it's not. If it is being worked on, Debian hasn't been invited into the discussion. The lack of information leaves many Debian people skeptical, several more hopeful, and me outright cynnical. I've seen this game play out too many times with the people here. Nothing changes. Debian is quite firm in its policies and frankly many feel KDE has tried to screw us more than once. KDE supporters are quite convinced Debian is the devil and will do anything to make sure KDE never "gives in to Debian's demands".. All the while, flamewars continue and egos are bruised. KDE in Debian? Hah, not likely. And there's not a fucking thing I can do about it. I tried and failed. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 direct brain implants :) xtifr - yah, then using computers would actually require some of these idiots to think! ;>
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
Joseph Carter wrote: > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has > no legal problems. Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems... > Will it make it into Debian? Not unless: > > * someone wishes to package it > * explicit permission is given Here you imply it does... > * implicit permission becomes unnecessary I don't understand. Peter
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 10:27:48AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > This was on the kde-licensing mailing list two days ago. > > Just FYI. > [snip] > > Well, I guess we know where Troll came up with their name... I would be surprised if this move was taken just to "fuck with Debian" as it were. My editorial on Freshmeat seemed to strike a nerve (mostly I hope because I can back up every word of what I said) and they felt it was necessary to backpedal pretty quickly... A stunt like this for publicity and to try and rag on a Linux distribution for sticking to its moral foundations could easily become PR suicide. I seriously don't think anyone at Troll Tech is so stupid as to pull a stunt like this for such a reason. (I hope I'm not proven wrong here..) Don't let mosfet make you react to this with contempt. Yes HE is trolling. He's been told that Debian will not accept implicit permission for KDE just like we won't accept it for anyone else. He's also been told that we have serious questions about whether or not KDE has legal right to give such implicit permission (and whether or not they actually do since several of their members have vocally refused to do so..) Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has no legal problems. Will it make it into Debian? Not unless: * someone wishes to package it * explicit permission is given * implicit permission becomes unnecessary This policy is the same one Debian has had since before I joined the project. It hasn't changed. And mosfet's trolling won't change it. > Chris, who wonders if we ignore Troll maybe they will just go away... ;-) I tried that with mosfet.. He's earned himself a permanent place in my killfile. He's not gone away - unfortunately, people seem compelled to react to his flamebait. *sigh* I wish the Trolls would just fix the damned license so I wouldn't have to hear about it anymore. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 hmm, is there a --now-dammit option for exim?
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
On Aug 11, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > This was on the kde-licensing mailing list two days ago. > Just FYI. [snip] Well, I guess we know where Troll came up with their name... Chris, who wonders if we ignore Troll maybe they will just go away... ;-)
Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
This was on the kde-licensing mailing list two days ago. Just FYI. Peter --- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 20:33:29 -0500 From: mosfet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL. Kevin Forge wrote: > > There is an interesting wrinkle in the whole QT, QPL and GPL > debate. Troll has just unleashed a beta version of it's IDE > type software licensed under the GPL and distributed in the > QT package. > > Is Debian gona drop this or all of QT ? Note that it's the > RAW GPL. No exemptions. Even most Debian people say that the demands to make code written for Qt have a license clause has no legal basis. It will be amusing to see how they react to a GPL Qt application from Troll Tech themselves ;-) If they want to remove Qt because of this screw them - there is absolutely no legal issues carrying with carrying it. BTW, I am very happy that the Trolls made the designer free. It's a kick butt app :) --- End of Forwarded Message
