Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:14:56AM -0600, John Galt wrote: Is that before or after KDE was found to be undistributable :) [I'm responding more to what you seem to be trying to imply, than what you explicitly asked. However, my response is couched as an explicit response to your explicit question -- not an answer, mind you, but a response.] Before *who* found KDE was undistributable? Debian, or KDE? Please recall that there are some significant KDE packages which existed as GPLed software well before the KDE project was started. Then, some KDE people modified the code and chose to distribute it with Qt as an essential component. Yet, for some reason, these KDE folks do not want to contact the original authors and get permission for distribution. [I've been told that they've made explicit statements that they don't want to do this.] Now, you *might* claim that the KDE folks were acting in ignorance -- that if they knew better, that they'd do the right thing. If that were the case, then it's probably true that they didn't know that what they wrote would be undistributable. I'm not going to make such a claim, however. -- Raul
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
Steve Greenland wrote: A reading of the complete GPL, along with RMS's other writings, not to mention the gigabytes of commentary and clarification that have been written since the GPL's release make it clear that GPL is intended to apply only to the licencsed software itself and derived works. Only the licensed software itself and derived works, and works that the software is derived from, correct? Otherwise Qt wouldn't be a problem (KDE is derived from Qt, Qt isn't derived from KDE). -- Brian F. Kimball
DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
Hi, the DFSG Paragraph 9 says: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. A restriction could be that you have to publish all parts of the program under the same license as the GPL says - This Discussion has been fought in the QT vs. GPL debate and has ended in QPL and GPL not be compatible which in my eyes shows the Contamination of QT from GPL based programs. Comments ? Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-subject-2-change Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots.
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: the DFSG Paragraph 9 says: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software [...] A restriction could be that you have to publish all parts of the program under the same license as the GPL says - This Discussion has been fought in the QT vs. GPL debate and has ended in QPL and GPL not be compatible which in my eyes shows the Contamination of QT from GPL based programs. Note that it says Other Software. This refers to other programs on the same medium. Not to source code that is put together to form one software program such as is the case in a program that is derived from both GPL and QT code. Note that Debian does contain -seperate- programs that are distributed under the GPL and programs that are distributed under the QT, just no programs that can be seen as being distributed under both the GPL and the QT license such as when they are derived from both GPL and QT covered code - except when a special exception is made to make this legally possible, see http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/get-copyright?package=licq-plugin-qt2 for an example. Cheers, Mark
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:41:59PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: the DFSG Paragraph 9 says: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software [...] A restriction could be that you have to publish all parts of the program under the same license as the GPL says - This Discussion has been fought in the QT vs. GPL debate and has ended in QPL and GPL not be compatible which in my eyes shows the Contamination of QT from GPL based programs. Note that it says Other Software. This refers to other programs on the same medium. Not to source code that is put together to form one software program such as is the case in a program that is derived from both GPL and QT code. Read your quote: License Must Not Contaminate Other Software Note that Debian does contain -seperate- programs that are distributed under the GPL and programs that are distributed under the QT, just no programs that can be seen as being distributed under both the GPL and the QT license such as when they are derived from both GPL and QT covered code - except when The paragraph says License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software. As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires the whole work distributed under THIS license this means a contamination into other programs read: QT2 Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-subject-2-change Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots.
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote: The paragraph says License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software. As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires the whole work distributed under THIS license this means a contamination into other programs read: QT2 Distributing a GPLed program and QT2 on the same medium is perfectly legal, thus there is no contamination. What is not tolerated is mixing QT2 and some GPL code to form a new piece of software. One might call this contamination, but it does not contaminate _other_ software. Sam. -- Only try to remember the truth : there is no Cabal.
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: The paragraph says License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software. As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires the whole work distributed under THIS license this means a contamination into other programs read: QT2 No a program that is distributed under the GPL and a -seperate- program (or library) distributed under the QT license can coexist on the same medium. Debian includes both such programs. The only way a GPL covered program and/or a QT covered program contaminate each other is when they are combined in one bigger program which is a derivative of both original programs (that means they can no longer be seen as seperate Software programs). Then the program can just not be distributed since the licenses conflict each other (except when one gives a special exception to do this). So the GPL (or QT) license does not contaminate until someone actively makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs. But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special exception) they can (and Debian will) distribute them. (Note that Debian distributes libqt2.) Cheers, Mark
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:57:03PM +0200, Samuel Hocevar wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote: The paragraph says License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software. As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires the whole work distributed under THIS license this means a contamination into other programs read: QT2 Distributing a GPLed program and QT2 on the same medium is perfectly legal, thus there is no contamination. What is not tolerated is mixing QT2 and some GPL code to form a new piece of software. One might call this contamination, but it does not contaminate _other_ software. Ah - ok - So you mean the contamination clause does only apply to completely unrelated programs (In the means of software development not in the means of filesystems ). 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. distributed along does not give an exact definition of the relation the 2 programs may have for a legal contamination like in the GPL vs. QPL issue. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-subject-2-change Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots.
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:06:29PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: So the GPL (or QT) license does not contaminate until someone actively makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs. But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special exception) they can (and Debian will) distribute them. (Note that Debian distributes libqt2.) Right - But not KDE - As this would contaminate the libqt2 in my understanding of Par. 9 - The problem already stated in another mail the problem i had/have with Par.9 is that it doesnt contain a specification/definition under which relations a contamination would be legal/illegal. I can accept the QT2/GPL fact without a problem but is is NOT a combined program - I see it as KDE including parts of QT2 and therefor requiring those parts of the QT2 to be under the GPL (symbol names, api definition etc). But noone else than the Copyright holder may limit or change the Distibution/License - Which means we (debian) may not distribute parts of the QT2 under the GPL which would KDE linked against QT2 would require. But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms in Par.9 - It says distributed along which KDE + QT2 would also be. IMHO the distributed along term does not clear the tightness/intense of the coupling (As none of the Programs debian distributes is unrelated to others - The relation COULD be the same medium) Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-subject-2-change Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots.
Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL Virulogical effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: So the GPL (or QT) license does not contaminate until someone actively makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs. But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special exception) they can (and Debian will) distribute them. (Note that Debian distributes libqt2.) Right - But not KDE - As this would contaminate the libqt2 in my understanding of Par. 9 Your understanding is flawed. The problem already stated in another mail the problem i had/have with Par.9 is that it doesnt contain a specification/definition under which relations a contamination would be legal/illegal. It does. Other software is the key word. The GPL _NEVER_ _EVEN_ _CONSIDERS_ the license of Qt until such time as you try to combine it with the GPL'd code. At that time the GPL says you may not do it with THIS software covered by the GPL. Never does the GPL tell you that Qt can't be licensed under Troll Tech's license. All it says is that IF you wish to use Qt with the GPL'd program that Qt's license must be compatible. It's not, so you can't. This is not contamination of other software, it's contamination of the GPL'd software. Whether or not this is acceptable to you is your business but it does NOT fail the DFSG. This has been reiterated at least four times to you in this thread. All you're doing is repeating yourself. I can accept the QT2/GPL fact without a problem but is is NOT a combined program - I see it as KDE including parts of QT2 and therefor requiring those parts of the QT2 to be under the GPL (symbol names, api definition etc). But noone else than the Copyright holder may limit or change the Distibution/License - Which means we (debian) may not distribute parts of the QT2 under the GPL which would KDE linked against QT2 would require. Well you see there you have the problem in a nutshell. The people putting out KDE have demanded as part of your license to distribute the software an impossible set of conditions... What to do? Don't distribute KDE binaries, as the license says not to do. But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms in Par.9 - It says distributed along which KDE + QT2 would also be. Let me put this in very simple terms... This software is is under my arbitrary licence with these conditions [...] Distribution of this software means you agree to my terms, and that all software you distribute on the same CD is available to me under the same terms. That'd pretty easily fail the DFSG. The GPL doesn't say anything like that however and doesn't fail the DFSG. IMHO the distributed along term does not clear the tightness/intense of the coupling (As none of the Programs debian distributes is unrelated to others - The relation COULD be the same medium) You're NEVER going to find a wording which suits everyone. -- 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 * Overfiend ponders doing an NMU of asclock, in which he simply changes the extended description to If you bend over and put your head between your legs, you can read the time off your assclock. doogie Overfiend: go to bed.
