Re: Qt and the GPL

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
> > number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
> > become illegal. With a GPL/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
> > write a GPL application or pay for a license. This would leave all of
> > the BSD, MIT, Artistic and even LGPL authors out in the cold.
> 
> No.  BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL.  You'd
> leave out those people who were using these licenses to interoperate
> with software licensed under non-GPL terms as a single work.

Hmmm, this isn't how I understand it. One can link from a GPL
application to a BSD library, but not from a BSD application to a GPL
library. This is because the application is a derivative of the
library according to the GPL, and all derivatives of GPL code have to
be GPL as well. 

In any case, it would also leave out the MPL and QPL users, of which
there is a significant number of the latter.

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Source Distribution

[kmself]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:37:47AM +, Ben DeLong wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question.  I am building a Linux appliance based completely on
> open source software.  In putting this appliance together I have not
> added nor modified a single line of code in any of the open source
> applications that I'm using.  As this is an appliance and storage space
> is limited, there is no room to include the source within the
> appliance.  Given that all the code in this appliance is freely
> available from a variety of locations on the net, do I have to go to the
> trouble of providing a source CD for all the open source programs that I
> have included in it?

Cf:  Section 3 of the GNU GPL, which spells out source distribution
obligations.  

You must distribute sources, or a promise to provide same at no more
than cost of physically performing the source distribution.  If and only
if you are considering a non-commercial use of GPL'd code can you rely
on pointing to existing distribution points.  Distribution need not be
on the appliance itself.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Qt and the GPL

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:57:53PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
> > I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (or dual licensing) qt in this way
> > in June to Trolltech. They told me where I could stick it then and it looks
> > like they've reconsidered it now.
> 
> You also have to consider the history of Trolltech. Everytime they have
> taken one step forward, huge sectors of the community have jumped
> them enmass and bitched that they didn't take a big enough step. 

It could have been worse -- they could be Sun.

Note that both Troll and Sun have come around to at least a partial
embrace of the GPL (I'd say Troll's taken the larger step -- Qt is a
bigger part of their business by orders of magnitude than StarOffice is
of Sun's).  The problem was with Troll, KDE, and Sun making noises that
they were in fact:

   1). OSI/OpenSource
   2). GPL compatible, and/or
   3). Unfairly persecuted

...which IMO really crossed up a lot of folks.  If you want to play the
FS/OS game, play it.  If you want to be close, but not quite, there,
then 'fess up.  BitMover (BitKeeper License) is an example of the other.
Larry McVoy unabashadly says it's not OSI Open Source certified, but
it's close enough.  Larry's also trying to make a buck, and by reports,
he's at least moderately successful.  KDE and Sun were trying to
hand-wave the problem away, and we're sorry, but that just didn't work.
We're now seeing substantive change.  Yes, it would have been nice to
see it six, nine, twelve, eighteen months ago, but

> Letting people use the library with no cost for OSS wasn't good enough
> (and it wasn't). Changing to a OSS license wasn't good enough.
> Considering a GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough. 

I'd have a difference of opinion here.  A GPL-compatible license
(essentially:  a GPL-convertible license) would be good enough for me.
But it would have to be what it said it was.

> The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
> number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
> become illegal. With a GPL/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
> write a GPL application or pay for a license. This would leave all of
> the BSD, MIT, Artistic and even LGPL authors out in the cold.

No.  BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL.  You'd
leave out those people who were using these licenses to interoperate
with software licensed under non-GPL terms as a single work.

> But the triple licensing is a stroke of genius the more I think about
> it. Qt is Free for Free Software, Open Source for Open Source Software
> and proprietary for proprietary software. You can't get much more
> equitable than that. If you were the one who planted this idea in their
> heads, congratulations!

Ditto, both counts.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Please remove from list

[Greg Wright]

*** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***

On 4/09/00 at 10:58 Rob Levin wrote:

>I've tried this repeatedly via the appropriate channels.  Please remove:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>from the mailing list.
>
>Thank you.


Its probably better to ask that a footer be inserted where instructions
could be spelt out, or a website used for reference, in the mean time try
this

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

and in the body & subject place

unsubscribe license-discuss


or try some popular list addresses like  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

*note* I do not know if the above will work 

Regards

Greg Wright
-- 

IT Consultant Sydney Australia PH 0418 292020
Available for Global Contracts   Int. +61 418 292020
web  http://www.ausit.come-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trading As -   AAA Computers, ITpro, Ozzie Soft, providers of IT services.

RE: Qt and the GPL

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:

> It's a misconception that only open source/free software advocates
> should critize licenses. Anyone has the right to give their opinion
> on any license and let the author/company know about it. The fact
> that users of proprietary software don't do this makes me suspicious
> that they are not actually reading the licenses they've agreed to.

Even before I got into the FS/OSS Movements, I read the licenses of the
software I used. My favorite all time proprietary license, bar none, is
the original Borland "No Nonsense" License.

-- 
David Johnson
_

RE: Qt and the GPL

[Nelson Rush]

Yeah. I was sincerely trying to help though. ;-)

Licensing is a touchy issue, because you're requiring people to sign an
agreement that binds their actions. Certainly Trolltech could have done
anything they wanted, even stayed with a proprietary license. But it says
something about their character and persistance that they've seen it
through. I've emailed them with a thank you for making things right.

It's a misconception that only open source/free software advocates should
critize licenses. Anyone has the right to give their opinion on any license
and let the author/company know about it. The fact that users of proprietary
software don't do this makes me suspicious that they are not actually
reading the licenses they've agreed to. Certainly if a majority of Windows
(tm) users had a problem with a portion of the EULA (such as the recently
(well not so recent) removed right to a refund) Microsoft would take action
and change it. Instead, these users continue to agree to anything Microsoft
puts in the license and use the software.

Such apathy disgusts me. I do not long for the day that open source/free
software advocates no longer open their mouths.

I do know the guy that worked with Trolltech, then turned against them. I've
worked with him personally on the QuakeForge project, Joseph Carter. The
reason he became upset with them is that he had worked out a reasonable and
acceptable license which Trolltech had agreed to, then Trolltech turned
around and fooled with it further. When it came out, it wasn't the same
license he had given them.

I'm glad they actually used my idea. It surely is the perfect combination
because now they can turn a profit, and satisfy all of their end user's
needs. And now they've gained a lot of support, even I am going to play a
bit with qt now. Though, I'm still a big advocate of Gnome/GTK+. ;-)

I'm going to buy a HelixCode CD, gotta love that monkey!

-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 7:58 PM
To: Nelson Rush; License-Discuss
Subject: RE: Qt and the GPL


On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
> I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (or dual licensing) qt in this
way
> in June to Trolltech. They told me where I could stick it then and it
looks
> like they've reconsidered it now.

You also have to consider the history of Trolltech. Everytime they have
taken one step forward, huge sectors of the community have jumped
them enmass and bitched that they didn't take a big enough step. Letting
people use the library with no cost for OSS wasn't good enough (and it
wasn't). Changing to a OSS license wasn't good enough. Considering a
GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough. Even the guy who wrote
most of the QPL turned on them and became their biggest critic. They
could have kept their product 100% proprietary and received only a tiny
fraction of the grief.

If they got a bit snippy on you, just remember that they've had
thousands of people be snippy to them first.

> He said, "Well, we're a company and we've got to
> make money." So, of course I thought why not just GPL & proprietary
license,
> ala id Software and Quake 1. He said it would be impossible. I didn't
> understand why.

The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
become illegal. With a GPL/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
write a GPL application or pay for a license. This would leave all of
the BSD, MIT, Artistic and even LGPL authors out in the cold.

But the triple licensing is a stroke of genius the more I think about
it. Qt is Free for Free Software, Open Source for Open Source Software
and proprietary for proprietary software. You can't get much more
equitable than that. If you were the one who planted this idea in their
heads, congratulations!

 --
David Johnson
_

Source Distribution

[Ben DeLong]

Hi all,

I have a question.  I am building a Linux appliance based completely on
open source software.  In putting this appliance together I have not
added nor modified a single line of code in any of the open source
applications that I'm using.  As this is an appliance and storage space
is limited, there is no room to include the source within the
appliance.  Given that all the code in this appliance is freely
available from a variety of locations on the net, do I have to go to the
trouble of providing a source CD for all the open source programs that I
have included in it?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ben

RE: Qt and the GPL

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
> I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (or dual licensing) qt in this way
> in June to Trolltech. They told me where I could stick it then and it looks
> like they've reconsidered it now.

You also have to consider the history of Trolltech. Everytime they have
taken one step forward, huge sectors of the community have jumped
them enmass and bitched that they didn't take a big enough step. Letting
people use the library with no cost for OSS wasn't good enough (and it
wasn't). Changing to a OSS license wasn't good enough. Considering a
GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough. Even the guy who wrote
most of the QPL turned on them and became their biggest critic. They
could have kept their product 100% proprietary and received only a tiny
fraction of the grief.

If they got a bit snippy on you, just remember that they've had
thousands of people be snippy to them first.

> He said, "Well, we're a company and we've got to
> make money." So, of course I thought why not just GPL & proprietary license,
> ala id Software and Quake 1. He said it would be impossible. I didn't
> understand why.

The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
become illegal. With a GPL/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
write a GPL application or pay for a license. This would leave all of
the BSD, MIT, Artistic and even LGPL authors out in the cold.

But the triple licensing is a stroke of genius the more I think about
it. Qt is Free for Free Software, Open Source for Open Source Software
and proprietary for proprietary software. You can't get much more
equitable than that. If you were the one who planted this idea in their
heads, congratulations!

 -- 
David Johnson
_

RE: NASM Public Licence - What do you guys think?

[Nelson Rush]

Well, I'm not going to change it without their permission of course! ;-)
We've asked Julian about this but he doesn't understand why we have a
problem with the licence.

Well, I did get worried about it a couple months ago but relaxed and thought
it would be fine. But, after re-reading sections of it I'm worried again. I
really don't want to continue contributing to a monster.

-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 7:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NASM Public Licence - What do you guys think?


On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>
> Just saying it's complaint doesn't mean it is, in my book anyways.
>
> The problem is that we're forced to use this licence if we want to make
> modifications to NASM, NASM is already licensed under it by the original
> authors.

Well, it's their code so they get to control the derivations. I mean,
you wouldn't want anybody changing the license on your stuff, would
you? I sounds like it's Free Software though, so don't worry too much
about using it. It does skirt the line a bit by requiring you to notify
them and all though.

--
David Johnson
_

FW: [Nasm-devel] So long and thanks for all the fish...

[Nelson Rush]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of h-peter
recktenwald
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 7:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Nasm-devel] So long and thanks for all the fish...


Nelson Rush wrote:
>
> One horrible consequence of the NASM licence is that we cannot link to
GPL'd
> code.

I don't remember which software it was, but some well known (motif?)
where for several years a GPL-ed distribution did exist which was
patching the original and thus could be independently licensed.

maybe a solution for nasm, having two parts in the distribution, the
0.98 version and another package of patches plus an appropriate
utility which puts it all together?

regards,
hp

--
.hpr - h.-peter recktenwald, berlin
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://home.snafu.de/phpr - t: +49 30 85967858
Weitergabe oder Verwendung obiger Angaben zu kommerziellen Zwecken ist
gem. ?28 Abs. 3 BDSG untersagt.

___
Nasm-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/nasm-devel

RE: Qt and the GPL

[Nelson Rush]

I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (or dual licensing) qt in this way
in June to Trolltech. They told me where I could stick it then and it looks
like they've reconsidered it now.

The idea that I personally favored (though I mentioned triple licensing I
thought it would be too much of a hassle) was for them to use either the QPL
& GPL or drop the QPL for a proprietary license instead & GPL. The reason
for this is that I had asked some big guy at Trolltech why the QPL was so
strange, the way it was. He said, "Well, we're a company and we've got to
make money." So, of course I thought why not just GPL & proprietary license,
ala id Software and Quake 1. He said it would be impossible. I didn't
understand why.

I'm not saying I'm responsible (though I'd like to think I am ) for
Trolltech GPL'ing QT, I'm sure many others were trying to convince them to
dual/triple license.

I'm glad they did it. Now I can actually try out qt, that was the only thing
stopping me.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 5:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qt and the GPL


On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:30:39PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> For those who not yet heard, the Qt 2.2 library will be released under
> the GPL on Wednesday. It will also be available under the QPL and a
> proprietary version as well. (see the announcement at www.trolltech.com)
>
> I have no idea yet whether this means that Qt will be dual-licensed
> under both the QPL and GPL, or if there will be separate versions. But
> it raises some interesting questions.

My read was triple-licensing:

   Qt:   Proprietary products
   QPL:  Non-GPLd free software (eg: BSD, Artistic, etc.)
   GPL:  GPLd free software

> If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
> will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will
> be available with an identical non-GPL version.

Not quite.  Apache has dualed Artistic and GPL licenses for some time.
Sun announced dualing StarOffice, including translation libraries, under
LGPL and SISSL in July.  Mozilla is looking at MozPL and GPL for its own
code, with possible use of LGPL for libraries.

I've been a strong proponent of dual (or multi) licensing for a while, I
see it resolving a number of issues of license compatibility.  Note that
Troll is explicitly selecting GPL over LGPL for libraries to preserve
rights for proprietary use under the terms of the Qt license -- they are
preserving a proprietary business model while promoting free software at
the same time.  It's an interesting strategic ploy.

Conversely, Mozilla and Sun are explicitly looking at leveraging free
software through the *LGPL* for library components of the respective
projects (though, AFAIK, Mozilla hasn't announced an LGPL policy though
it's being considered -- given the project's goals it may be a good
choice).

> So, if one writes a program linking to the QPL version, can it be used
> with the GPL version as well? I would think that it could, and RMS has
> said it could, but I'm wondering what the legal minded think.

If the utilizing project is GPLd, yes.  If not, no.

> And if it is to be dual-licensed, doesn't that mean that one gets to
> pick and choose their terms? For instance, I can both link to it with
> a non-GPL application, as well as not having to submit modifications
> as patches. Any Perl users out there familiar with dual licensing
> issues?

My understanding is that you'd get terms of incorporation and terms of
transmission.  I claim right to incorporat library libqtfoo under the
terms of any one of: (Qt|QPL|GPL), but I *transmit* rights of tertiary
use under *all* of (Qt QPL GPL).  It becomes somewhat like file
permission security under Linux, though you allow *both* files and users
to have multiple group associations.  Essentially, file belongs to
groups Qt, GQL, and GPL.  If user belongs to any one group, user has
access to file.  User transmits file with all three group flags, by
default.

> And finally, how will Trolltech accept modifications? Will they be
> able to apply both the QPL and GPL to the modification at the same
> time?

Good question.  My suggestion would be to require triple-licensing terms
to be applied to modifications for inclusion in the build tree.  Any
other terms would be an invitation for problems.

My feeling is that the social dynamic of such practices, particularly if
endorsed by icons such as RMS, is that they will be both generally
accepted, and the multiple licensing terms will tend to be accepted and
propogated by community users unless there are grossly unfair or
unacceptable terms in the non-free or non-GPLd licenses.  Multiple
licensing is a powerful tool, it's not a silver bullet solving all
problems, nor a carte blanche allowing any arbitrary terms in the
non-free licensing options.  However, used judiciously, it should both
promote free software, allow proprietary use, and avoid licen

Re: Qt and the GPL

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 03:35:22PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > > If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
> > > will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will
> > > be available with an identical non-GPL version. 
> > 
> > Not quite.  Apache has dualed Artistic and GPL licenses for some time.

My bad.  I was thinking Perl, not Apache.  Apache is BSD (advertising
clause).

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

PD, clarified (was Re: Plan 9 license)

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 03:06:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:40:23PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:

> PD is PD for works and derivatives.  

Clarifying:  a PD work doesn't allow the original author to claim rights
over derivative works, which was my intended meaning.  The author(s)
contributing to the derivative works may, however.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: NASM Public Licence - What do you guys think?

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:04:34PM -0500, Nelson Rush wrote:
> The following link is for the NASM Licence under which The Netwide Assembler
> is licensed. I'd like to get the opinion of this list on whether it is safe
> to develop under this licence or not?
> 
> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/licence.txt

There appears to be no obligation to distribute sources under this
license.  It is a free-distribution license, not a free software
license.  It appears to be trying to be an LGPL-ish library license.

Section IV is gratuitous -- authors can grant additional licensing terms
independently of what a license may state.

Section VIII may not be sufficient for disclaimer of warrantee.  MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SUCH CLAUSES MUST BE IN UPPERCASE TEXT TO MAKE
THEM STAND OUT PROMINANTLY IN A LICENSING AGREEMENT.  This may have
liability consequences to developers distributing software under this
license.

Without knowing more of the objectives of the organization and the
reasons for choosing to create a new license, I cannot comment further.
I strongly prefer using an existing license to creating a new one.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Qt and the GPL

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
> > will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will
> > be available with an identical non-GPL version. 
> 
> Not quite.  Apache has dualed Artistic and GPL licenses for some time.
> Sun announced dualing StarOffice, including translation libraries, under
> LGPL and SISSL in July.  Mozilla is looking at MozPL and GPL for its own
> code, with possible use of LGPL for libraries.

I guess in a way Apache has library-like code. I was thinking in terms
of the typical dynamic link library. Although Mozilla has a few things
that count as typical libraries as well...

> It becomes somewhat like file
> permission security under Linux, though you allow *both* files and users
> to have multiple group associations.  Essentially, file belongs to
> groups Qt, GQL, and GPL.  If user belongs to any one group, user has
> access to file.  User transmits file with all three group flags, by
> default.

An interesting way of describing it. I must remember the analogy!

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Qt and the GPL

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:30:39PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> For those who not yet heard, the Qt 2.2 library will be released under
> the GPL on Wednesday. It will also be available under the QPL and a
> proprietary version as well. (see the announcement at www.trolltech.com)
> 
> I have no idea yet whether this means that Qt will be dual-licensed
> under both the QPL and GPL, or if there will be separate versions. But
> it raises some interesting questions.

My read was triple-licensing:

   Qt:   Proprietary products
   QPL:  Non-GPLd free software (eg: BSD, Artistic, etc.)
   GPL:  GPLd free software

> If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
> will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will
> be available with an identical non-GPL version. 

Not quite.  Apache has dualed Artistic and GPL licenses for some time.
Sun announced dualing StarOffice, including translation libraries, under
LGPL and SISSL in July.  Mozilla is looking at MozPL and GPL for its own
code, with possible use of LGPL for libraries.

I've been a strong proponent of dual (or multi) licensing for a while, I
see it resolving a number of issues of license compatibility.  Note that
Troll is explicitly selecting GPL over LGPL for libraries to preserve
rights for proprietary use under the terms of the Qt license -- they are
preserving a proprietary business model while promoting free software at
the same time.  It's an interesting strategic ploy.  

Conversely, Mozilla and Sun are explicitly looking at leveraging free
software through the *LGPL* for library components of the respective
projects (though, AFAIK, Mozilla hasn't announced an LGPL policy though
it's being considered -- given the project's goals it may be a good
choice).

> So, if one writes a program linking to the QPL version, can it be used
> with the GPL version as well? I would think that it could, and RMS has
> said it could, but I'm wondering what the legal minded think.

If the utilizing project is GPLd, yes.  If not, no.

> And if it is to be dual-licensed, doesn't that mean that one gets to
> pick and choose their terms? For instance, I can both link to it with
> a non-GPL application, as well as not having to submit modifications
> as patches. Any Perl users out there familiar with dual licensing
> issues?

My understanding is that you'd get terms of incorporation and terms of
transmission.  I claim right to incorporat library libqtfoo under the
terms of any one of: (Qt|QPL|GPL), but I *transmit* rights of tertiary
use under *all* of (Qt QPL GPL).  It becomes somewhat like file
permission security under Linux, though you allow *both* files and users
to have multiple group associations.  Essentially, file belongs to
groups Qt, GQL, and GPL.  If user belongs to any one group, user has
access to file.  User transmits file with all three group flags, by
default.

> And finally, how will Trolltech accept modifications? Will they be
> able to apply both the QPL and GPL to the modification at the same
> time?

Good question.  My suggestion would be to require triple-licensing terms
to be applied to modifications for inclusion in the build tree.  Any
other terms would be an invitation for problems.

My feeling is that the social dynamic of such practices, particularly if
endorsed by icons such as RMS, is that they will be both generally
accepted, and the multiple licensing terms will tend to be accepted and
propogated by community users unless there are grossly unfair or
unacceptable terms in the non-free or non-GPLd licenses.  Multiple
licensing is a powerful tool, it's not a silver bullet solving all
problems, nor a carte blanche allowing any arbitrary terms in the
non-free licensing options.  However, used judiciously, it should both
promote free software, allow proprietary use, and avoid license forking
and balkanization.

> -- David Johnson _ 

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: Plan 9 license

[kmself]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:40:23PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > > > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > > > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free
> > > > Software?
> > 
> > Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see.  PD *is* free
> > software.  However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional
> > set of concerns.  Review please for class.
> 
> I understood the FSF to mean that PD with_source_code is Free
> Software.  It is a requirement for Free Software that the source code
> be available. My hypothetical case involved a PD binary where the
> source code had not been disclosed.

Ok, you got me, I think.

Though, in this case, reverse-engineering the code to produce
human-readable sources would be allowable.  PD is PD for works and
derivatives.  The person REing the sources would then have to release
these as PD rather than claiming copyright to them, as might be
possible.  PD binary is a step removed from PD source, but it's still
PD, and could possibly meet the FSF's definition, even though source
code (a precondition in the FSF's discussion) isn't initially available.

Note also that a PD binary is of limited utility w/o the sources anyway.
I don't know what the point of the PD binary comment was -- it lacks
context (even in the original post).

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Re: NASM Public Licence - What do you guys think?

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
> The following link is for the NASM Licence under which The Netwide Assembler
> is licensed. I'd like to get the opinion of this list on whether it is safe
> to develop under this licence or not?

Hmm, one almost wonders why they didn't just use the GPL for their
license, as the intent seems very close. In any case, I don't like the
stuff about having to inform the authors about various things, like
distributing modified copies, although it does explicitly say that
permission is not needed to do this. Although this part does not go
against the OSD.

I do worry about section X (GNU compliancy). Merely saying "may be
distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU General
Public Licence" might not be good enough.

In any case, if you are looking at this license because it meets your
intentions, then think about using the (L)GPL instead. The only
practical difference between the two is the requirement to notify the
author of inclusion and modification, which the vast majority of
developers do anyway of their own volition. 

-- 
David Johnson
_

NASM Public Licence - What do you guys think?

[Nelson Rush]

The following link is for the NASM Licence under which The Netwide Assembler
is licensed. I'd like to get the opinion of this list on whether it is safe
to develop under this licence or not?

http://nasm.sourceforge.net/licence.txt

Sincerely,
Nelson Rush

"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"
- Monty Python's flying circus

Qt and the GPL

[David Johnson]

For those who not yet heard, the Qt 2.2 library will be released under
the GPL on Wednesday. It will also be available under the QPL and a
proprietary version as well. (see the announcement at www.trolltech.com)

I have no idea yet whether this means that Qt will be dual-licensed
under both the QPL and GPL, or if there will be separate versions. But
it raises some interesting questions.

If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will be
available with an identical non-GPL version. So, if one writes a
program linking to the QPL version, can it be used with the GPL version
as well? I would think that it could, and RMS has said it could, but
I'm wondering what the legal minded think.

And if it is to be dual-licensed, doesn't that mean that one gets to
pick and choose their terms? For instance, I can both link to it with a
non-GPL application, as well as not having to submit modifications as
patches. Any Perl users out there familiar with dual licensing issues?

And finally, how will Trolltech accept modifications? Will they be able
to apply both the QPL and GPL to the modification at the same time?

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching.  I see
> sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate.

Guilty as charged! I can be the sloppiest of thinkers at times. I would
make a lousy lawyer.

> > > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?
> 
> Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see.  PD *is* free
> software.  However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set
> of concerns.  Review please for class.

I understood the FSF to mean that PD with_source_code is Free Software.
It is a requirement for Free Software that the source code be
available. My hypothetical case involved a PD binary where the source
code had not been disclosed.

-- 
David Johnson
_

What is CMM (was Re: Plan 9 license)

[kmself]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:24:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote:

<...>

> > Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. 
> 
> What is "CMM"?  What is "CMM level 1"?

CMM is an acronym for the Capability Maturity Model, a metric of
software development process sophistication applied to an organization
as a whole, developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie
Mellon University.  

CMM level one is roughly equivalant to "Thog invent square wheel.  No ask
no one for advice.  No remember why square wheel no work last time."

For a more conventional definition of CMM levels, see:
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/cmm.sum.html

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature

Please remove from list

[Rob Levin]

I've tried this repeatedly via the appropriate channels.  Please remove:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

from the mailing list.

Thank you.


Rob L.

list removal

[Ryan Dietz]

Could you please remove the address

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 from the license listserve.

Thanks
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

Re: Plan 9 license

[Angelo Schneider]

[rest deleted]

> 
> I'm not familiar with EU copyright law, but can't the same thing be
> accomplished with contracts?  "I agree to allow Company X, and no one
> else, to distribute copies of my software; in return, Company X will pay
> me .  This agreement remains in force until the copyright
> expires."

Sure that can be done.
But the copyright remains by the author and is not transfered.
The contract is void if the Company X fails to refund or stops 
refunding the copyright holder.

"Transfer" of "distribution" rights is either by explicit law or by 
common interpretation of law not possible without refunding. 
(Contracts can not break law in EU)

So a working contract in which you "aggree to transfer your
inventions and patent worth ideas or creations" to the employer
are only relevant in so far that yo will have to get an additional
refunding if your employer make use of that inventions.

It is not possible to say, you are payed for your work and everything 
is mine. Well, companies do that. But they do not have a stand in 
court :-)

THIS is totaly different in the US. If you invent something and have
a line like that in your contract, you are out of business.

Regards,
Angelo

--
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24   Patterns/FrameWorks  Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe   C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467

Re: Plan 9 license

[kmself]

Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching.  I see
sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate.  Neither John nor David
should feel particularly distinguished by my response.

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:20:22AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> > "right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else
> > can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right
> > to pursue property  means that you can use voluntary means to acquire
> > property but cannot coerce it from anyone.
> 
> Coercion, like property, can only be defined within the context of a
> specific legal system.  It has no natural existence.

Extralegal coercion can exist.  Cf:  mafia protection racket.

> >  But another definition of property is that it can be defended
> > and controlled through voluntary means. In terms of land ownership, it
> > can be defended and controlled in the absence of trespass laws through
> > the use of locks, fences and guards. Likewise, information can be
> > defended in the absence of IP laws through encryption, registration and
> > time limitations.
> 
> Hmp.  Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of --
> stock certificates in the absence of a legal system.

Rather than try to develop a new definition of property, how about
dicussing the relevance of an accepted legal one:

1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a
tract of land or a chattel);  the right of ownership.  2.  Any
external thing over which the rights of possession, use, and
enjoyment are exercised.

Black's Law Dictionary (Pocket Edition)

> > Since information has been created by the author and
> > can be defended by the author, it counts as a form of property.

Rather more specifically, intellectual property, as distinguished from
real property.

> IP rights only become significant when the content *is* publicly
> known.  Secret books aren't that useful or profitable.

Disputed.  Again, Cf:  the mob.  Or the CIA.  To cite a different
authority:

Success for some people, depends on becoming well-known; for others,
it depends on never being found out.

  - Ashleigh Brilliant

Copyright can and has been used to protect unpublished materials.

> > But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software
> > developers can still privately protect their works.
> 
> Indeed, the copyright license for closed-source software is no problem:
> "All rights reserved".  Since you do not own the software anyway,
> your other rights don't exist.

Review please for class "first sale doctrine".

> > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?

Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see.  PD *is* free
software.  However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set
of concerns.  Review please for class.


-- 
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0

 PGP signature