Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other clauses. This is a popular misconception. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00119.html This appears to be specific to the Apache license. Cf the FSF license discussion page for the modified BSD license: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Well, RMS says that Apache License clause 4 is incompatible, which is nearly identical to the BSD clause 3. The reason these are incompatible is because they are additional restrictions. These are rather inconsequential conditions, but nonetheless, they are in addition to those in the GPL. Why RMS says the new BSD License is compatible, but the Apache License is not, is beyond me. Perhaps he included clause 4 along with clause 5 by mistake. Or maybe he is referring to a different version of the by mistake. We all make mistakes sometimes :-) -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
begin David Johnson quotation: The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's distribution requirements. That is correct. I was speaking of the combined work. (There are several key terms in the GNU GPL: linking, derived work, distribution. My post addressed licencing of the hypthesised derived work.) Okay, two things. Copyright law does not normally allow the recipient to change the terms of copyright or licensing. The author must give permission to do that. That is not a relevant objection: I was speaking of the combined work's licence. -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote: begin David Johnson quotation: The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's distribution requirements. That is correct. I was speaking of the combined work. I misunderstood you. It appears that we are on the same page after all :-) -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
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 _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:29:36AM -0500, Nelson Rush wrote: Are you kidding? The fact that Sun is actually going to, let alone actually considered to, release Star Office under the GPL is more than a mere, "How do you do?" It's quite astounding, and in fact quite improbable. StarOffice is not Solaris. It isn't even Java, by a long shot. Yes, release under the GPL is very noteworthy. Dual (actually triple) licensing under SISSL, GPL, and LGPL is more so. But there is a distinction I'm making between acceptance of the license in a corporate sense and betting the fscking farm on it. Sun's adopted. The farm remains to be bid. And if you think that Star Office isn't that important to Sun I think you're wrong. They want to compete directly with MS Office, I think this is why they chose to GPL it. But they're building, not risking, a market in doing so. Troll is putting the business on the line. Sun is lifting a finger to MSFT. The goal *isn't* competition in the Office market, it's destroying MSFT's OS market. I think they knew that for SO to be widely popular they had to distribute it quickly. Agreed. Common knowledge. Testimony during MSFT v. DoJ: New consumer software must distribute 1m copies *free* to gains sufficient mindshare to produce a viable market. Also, consider that major profits can still be made off it even though people have the right to redistribute freely. RedHat, etc., point in case. Disputed. SO is worth more in SPARC sales than it is in SO boxed sets, by orders of magnitude. And the Office Suite is Dead (tm). A posthumously written essay of mine. Key point: the suite served a marketing problem (how do I sell mediocre SW bar and baz with decent SW foo, and cannibalize my competition's market at the same time -- see _Information Rules_ by Shapiro and Varian (http://www.inforules.com/) for more information on tying and bundling). When the product is no longer monetized, the bundling is no longer strategic. Sun's first architectural announcement WRT SO was that they were disaggregating it -- pulling out the desktop and making it seperate apps. I also think they saw the value in embracing free software, since it gets a company noticed by the techies at large. Yes. And, last but not least it gives them leverage in the Gnome open office effort. Yes. Pity as IMO AbiWord is the better designed project (KISS). In addition, I'm sure there are workers at Sun who really like free software. They probably use a great deal of the stuff. I know several of them. Similar sentiments to those expressed elsewhere: "My first allegience is to foo technology, Sun just pays the bills". I've heard that from a number of sources, both at Sun and other companies. And the companies acknowledge this. The big current fight is Java licensing. Solaris is next after that. Event dates are likely targets, mark ALS and LWE/New York on your calendar. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:42 AM To: License-Discuss Subject: Re: Qt and the GPL 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 l
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:34:31PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: 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. The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't contain the advertising clause. In any case, it would also leave out the MPL and QPL users, of which there is a significant number of the latter. Yes, but you didn't mention these g. -- 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
This latest exchange points out one of the most troubling aspects of software licensing--even many of the people who care about such issues and closely read the licenses can't always agree on exactly what is and isn't allowed. In this case, I think it would help everyone a great deal if the FSF added a page to their web site that simply enumerated all the combinations of ways to statically and dynamically link free and non-free software to create free and non-free software, and then indicate whether the GPL and LGPL allow or forbid it. (A sentence or two of explanation might also be a good idea, for some cases.) Lou -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License-Discuss Subject: Re: Qt and the GPL 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 _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
No need to cc: me. I'm on the list. On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:39:34AM -0400, Lou Grinzo wrote: This latest exchange points out one of the most troubling aspects of software licensing--even many of the people who care about such issues and closely read the licenses can't always agree on exactly what is and isn't allowed. In this case, I think it would help everyone a great deal if the FSF added a page to their web site that simply enumerated all the combinations of ways to statically and dynamically link free and non-free software to create free and non-free software, and then indicate whether the GPL and LGPL allow or forbid it. (A sentence or two of explanation might also be a good idea, for some cases.) You mean like: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.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
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't contain the advertising clause. Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other clauses. This is a popular misconception. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00119.html Brian
Re: Qt and the GPL
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Considering a GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough. Eh? Who would not have been satisfied with a genuinely GPL-compatible QPL? -- __ \/ o\ Employ me! Cryptology, security, Perl, Linux, TCP/IP, and smarts. /\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/paul/cv/
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't contain the advertising clause. Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be distributed under the BSD license? Second follow up. Does this mean that another party can change my license to the GPL against my wishes by merely linking my code to a GPL library? I thought (and still believe) that only the copyright holder can change the license. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
begin David Johnson quotation: Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be distributed under the BSD license? A licence adheres to a particular _copy_ of a copyrighted work. Take a third party's BSD-licenced application and link it against a GPLed library, and the resulting composite work can be distributed only under the GNU GPL, as a result of the library's licence (absent separate permission from the copyright holder). Meanwhile, the original application copy, sans GPLed library, remains distributable under its original BSD-type licence. Second follow up. Does this mean that another party can change my license to the GPL against my wishes by merely linking my code to a GPL library? As to that _copy_, he can indeed create a composite work that legally cannot be distributed except under the GNU GPL (absent separate permission). However, you are contradicting yourself in asserting that this is "against your wishes". You would have embodied your wishes in the terms of the BSD-style licence you chose for public usage of your creation. Presumably, you would have _read_ that licence before using it: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html The operative clause says "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" Note the _extremely_ broad set of permissions it grants. I thought (and still believe) that only the copyright holder can change the license. As copyright holder, you can grant the public rights to do many things, including appropriate copies of your work for other purposes under other licences. If you don't want to grant such rights, don't use a licence that confers them. -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote: begin David Johnson quotation: Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be distributed under the BSD license? A licence adheres to a particular _copy_ of a copyrighted work. Okay, slow down. I need to digest this. Okay, I'll buy it. I can issue one copy under the BSD, another under the GPL, and yet a third under a proprietary license. But whether another party can is a different matter... ... Take a third party's BSD-licenced application and link it against a GPLed library, and the resulting composite work can be distributed only under the GNU GPL, as a result of the library's licence (absent separate permission from the copyright holder). The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's distribution requirements. Presumably, you would have _read_ that licence before using it: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html The operative clause says "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted" Note the _extremely_ broad set of permissions it grants. Okay, two things. Copyright law does not normally allow the recipient to change the terms of copyright or licensing. The author must give permission to do that. Since the BSD license does not explicitly grant that right it does not belong to the user. A broad set of permissions to "redistribute and use" does not include license modification. Second, just after the clause you quote there follows "...provided that the following conditions are met". Those conditions say that you must "retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." Even if the license allowed you to add stuff to it, you cannot take these conditions away. It's a requirement that you keep them. So even if a user receives a package that contains BSD licensed files, but is licensed as a whole under the GPL, he still has the explicit permission to take those BSD files and redistribute them under the terms of the BSD license. At the most, these files would be considered akin to dual-licensed. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote: On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote: Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be distributed under the BSD license? The application without the library of course is distributable under its own BSD license. The combined application can be distributed only under the GPL. Okay, that's the way I understood it. However, is it really a "combined" application? Am I allowed to distribute the application by itself, or must I actually bundle the application and the library together? Does anyone have any examples of BSD applications linking to GPL libraries in real life? -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Qt and the GPL
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:54:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't contain the advertising clause. Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other clauses. This is a popular misconception. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00119.html This appears to be specific to the Apache license. Cf the FSF license discussion page for the modified BSD license: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.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
Re: Qt and the GPL
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
Re: Qt and the GPL
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
