Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The derivative work as a whole must be released under the terms of the GPL because of this. The parts of the derivative work which originally were under that other license remain available under that other license alone, just as the parts which originally were under the GPL remain available under the GPL, alone. Nothing in the GPL forces the other code by itself to be under the GPL. How could that possibly be the case? [1] Many simple permissive licenses are GPL-miscable, including the BSDL and MIT/X11 licenses. See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses You can even link GPL'ed code with proprietary code, but the result cannot be redistributed per GPL #7. Such a combination can still be used by you as an individual, because GPL #0 states: The act of running the Program is not restricted -- -Chuck [1]: You can choose to use any license you want for original code that you've written. Software licenses apply to the code which is under that license, and to derivative works (assuming the license permits such to be created); conversely, a license does not apply to code which is not under that license. Unless you are the author, or unless the author grants permission for you to relicense the original source code, you do not have the right to take BSD-licensed code and put it under the GPL just because you feel like doing so, or just because you've linked the original program against (eg) GNU readline. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
On Friday 1 July 2005 07:32, Josh Ockert wrote: On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for top posting... The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as in might be void. What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the case when I use python bindings instead of C++ and (real) binding? And what about Use of the Program. A toolkit has a clear Use. And there we have the LGPL case all over again. Personally I wouldn't mind if the QPL came back to life. For *BSD it was a workable solution. On Friday 1 July 2005 04:44, Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. No. It's not about being licensed GPL. That allows for parts being BSDL. It's about having to relicense BSDL - GPL and we believe that can not be enforcable (at least not when abiding to GPL) Cheers, Dan I don't really see the contradiction in the GPL. The contradiction is in Use of a toolkit which only use is techinically to create a derivative. Hence the LGPL. Regardless of whether it's a law or a license, it's binding. Nothing else gives you the right to use the Qt libraries. Yes, but an EULA requiring release of
RE: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck Swiger Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:47 AM To: Danny Pansters Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone Chuck, The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders right to control how his work is used trumps anything else. What this means is that if you have a case where someone takes the GPL license and rewrites it to cover their work, what a court is going to rule is that while the FSF may have infringement grounds for suing the person for modifying the GPL, that still does not affect the copyright status of the work under the modified GPL. What the person would be required to do is cease infringing the GPL which means they would have to strike all references to the name GPL from their modified license, and probably significantly change sentences in it so that it's not a verbatim copy, but a 1st year legal student could do that. They would not be barred from creating TERMS that are mostly similar to the GPL's terms, yet containing additional un-GPL-like restrictions. This also means that if you happened to be using software under this modified GPL license, you would have no grounds for a defence of well your honor his license was supposed to be less restrictive because he says it's GPL and the GPL is less restrictive than what his license terms are, so I just followed the GPL terms, not his modified terms Now, there IS one loophole in the Qt modified GPL license. That is, you could use a program like emacs to write a C++ program that calls Qt classes. You could then distribute this program in source form, with a commercial or restrictive license, despite the fact that Trolltech's wording is: By using this version of Qt/QSA, you agree to and legally you would not be infringing. Any user that compiled your program with Qt would be infringing. However, if you used QtDesigner or any of that to write your C++ program, your source would be subject to the Qt license restrictions. Of course, if you removed references in your source to Qt Designer, it would be impossible for TrollTech to prove that you used it, rather than Emacs, to write your source, but that's a side issue. ;-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [ ... ] The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders right to control how his work is used trumps anything else. This generalization is correct, within certain important limits: a copyright right holder can put pretty much any license terms they want onto something. This generalization is also wrong: lots of licenses contain terms which are not enforcable, and there exist considerations which trump copyright law. For exmaple, if you write a program and distribute it under a license which says that anyone who uses your software must kill Ted's mother-in-law, one would discover that your mother-in-law's right to life trumps this license. Plenty of licenses claim that the user may only make one archival or backup copy of the software. Fair use (here in the US) and data retention requirements (here and elsewhere) permit people to take as many backups as they need to. This sort of thing happens often enough that non-trivial software licenses expect that some of their terms may be found to be unenforcable, leading to clauses such as: If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. (GPL clause #7) [ ... ] Now, there IS one loophole in the Qt modified GPL license. That is, you could use a program like emacs to write a C++ program that calls Qt classes. You could then distribute this program in source form, with a commercial or restrictive license, despite the fact that Trolltech's wording is: By using this version of Qt/QSA, you agree to and legally you would not be infringing. Of course you could. In fact, you could even release a binary version of the program which dynamicly loaded the Qt library if present, and still not be infringing, so long as your code is seperate and independent of Qt. This is precisely what the proprietary video drivers from ATI and nVidia for Linux do. ATI and nVidia cannot redistribute a Linux kernel plus their drivers, since that combination would violate GPL #7, but so long as they do not redistribute GPL'ed code, they are not subject to the terms of the GPL. Any user that compiled your program with Qt would be infringing. If the user compiled the program *and* redistributed a binary containing both that software and Qt, it would be infringing. But if the end-user simply uses the combination without redistributing it, then there is no infringement. See GPL clause #0 just below (qv). However, if you used QtDesigner or any of that to write your C++ program, your source would be subject to the Qt license restrictions. The output of a tool like an editor is generally not covered by the license which applies to the tool itself: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. (GPL #0) Microsoft doesn't own the Word or Excel documents you might create using Office, and TrollTech doesn't own the software you might create using QtDesigner. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
snipped I'd like to say that my mail to trolltech was before yours and I haven't had an answer yet save for an automated reply. Perhaps I'm not important enough :) I'm not sure if I want this to go on the list (and archive) but this is what I sent them, and yes, I was voicing concern but I don't think I got abusive or impolite at any point. If anything I'm directly pointing out where problems may/will arise (after re-reading I thought there's nothing wrong copying it to the list): - LIcensing of new QT4 From: Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 29/06/05 13:02 Hi there, congratulations with the new QT. But there was something on your download page where the licensing is explained that made me very worried. I use and work on FreeBSD and there is no way I'm going to write code (for FreeBSD/KDE and in most cases useless for Linux) that is forced to become GPL because it uses QT. And I don't think you can enforce relicensing like that. See, if I release code under BSDL that uses (but not changes) any GPL'd QT code I am abiding to the GPL. So is this situation still the same and is the wording on the webpage a bit mangled, or do you really mean that any and all code (including code under other open source licenses from people external to QT) must be released under GPL if it use QT? Please give me a clear answer on this, because for *BSD people this means a lot and we'd need to have a long hard talk about QT if indeed everything is forced into GPL. I'm working on a TV app for FreeBSD using PyQt and now I'm wondering if I should just keep it to myself. That can't be the intention of the licensing. Thanks, Danny Pansters -- They're still not clear about this as far as I can tell. It's interesting that what you said about relicensing in a GPL context (that this may not be a requirement if to be GPL compliant/compatible) was also the first thing that came to my mind. It may even void their GPL based license if taken to the letter. I fact that would be likely. I'll be satisfied if they make a statement about this or something alike, but I do agree with you that a requirement to relicensing while complying with gpl would not be possible if abiding to gpl themselves. Again, thanks, you clearly know what this stuff (from a *bsd perspective) is about, unlike others even if they *gasp* wrote a book. I dunno I feel somewhat silly about persuing this, but I also feel that if no one does we might end up with a dreadful deal etched in stone and that would be bye bye qt/kde development specifically for *BSD and released as such. That would very much hinder newcomers or veterans alike who want to enhance our desktop (can you say pc-bsd which adapted a GPL license based on exactly this presumable FUD!) Anayway I apreciate your input and effords talking with the Trolls. Thanks. Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Sorry for top posting... The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as in might be void. What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the case when I use python bindings instead of C++ and (real) binding? And what about Use of the Program. A toolkit has a clear Use. And there we have the LGPL case all over again. Personally I wouldn't mind if the QPL came back to life. For *BSD it was a workable solution. On Friday 1 July 2005 04:44, Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. No. It's not about being licensed GPL. That allows for parts being BSDL. It's about having to relicense BSDL - GPL and we believe that can not be enforcable (at least not when abiding to GPL) Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for top posting... The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as in might be void. What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the case when I use python bindings instead of C++ and (real) binding? And what about Use of the Program. A toolkit has a clear Use. And there we have the LGPL case all over again. Personally I wouldn't mind if the QPL came back to life. For *BSD it was a workable solution. On Friday 1 July 2005 04:44, Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. No. It's not about being licensed GPL. That allows for parts being BSDL. It's about having to relicense BSDL - GPL and we believe that can not be enforcable (at least not when abiding to GPL) Cheers, Dan I don't really see the contradiction in the GPL. Regardless of whether it's a law or a license, it's binding. Nothing else gives you the right to use the Qt libraries. As far as binding, if it links with the program, then it's covered under the GPL. I think you're seriously confused on something. The GPL does require that derivative works (including programs linked to GPL libraries) be distributed under the GPL. It does NOT require that the GPL
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
PS - Not that I'm claiming that BSD is a total giveaway, but as long as the required notices are intact, there's nothing wrong with BSDL code being imported to GPL code. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Folks, I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). I think this should be discussed. I already sent the Trolls an email asking for clarification about this, or rather if it's as bad as it seems for us. Perhaps they just overlooked the *BSDs... Dan PS keep your flames to yourselves. This is serious. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:30, Danny Pansters wrote: Folks, I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). I don't see what you are getting at. As I read it, they give an informal informational precis of what the GPL is, and then say: This is because the Open Source versions of our software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL license. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Danny Pansters wrote: I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). TrollTech is playing the same type of game that MySQL is doing. If you write your own program, and use it with QT which results in a derivative work, then you may not redistribute your program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it just requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. The new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine. Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering. On Wednesday 29 June 2005 16:47, Chuck Swiger wrote: Danny Pansters wrote: I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). TrollTech is playing the same type of game that MySQL is doing. If you write your own program, and use it with QT which results in a derivative work, then you may not redistribute your program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it just requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. The new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine. But they specifically state it: (I) Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed when it runs This is because the Open Source versions of our software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL license. Using the Open Source Edition means you agree that the source of the software you write also will be published according to this license. on their download page: http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html Their licensing page (I just noted) OTOH, has: (II) If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community in accordance with the GPL when your application is distributed. That's on http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html The two are obviously different (the latter being the same as for qt3-gpl). Abiding to and applying a licence are not the same. And that's what get's mangled up (perhaps accidentally). Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Yeah but if the letter of (I) is to be followed we'd be barred from releasing any qt/kde desktop enhancing stuff for *BSD if we'd insist on releasing that code (our own) on our own license terms (to be expected) which complies with what GPL asks of us. Hence I'm saying that (I) would go a lot further than GPL requirements. Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Danny Pansters wrote: Hey Chuck, thanks for answering. No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-) Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my last email, and got a positive response that they would look into this. My impression is that their download page reflects a somewhat clumsy explanation of what the GPL requires for derivative works, rather than an attempt by TrollTech to force other people to use the GPL. -- -Chuck From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ ... ] If one were to write your own program, and use it with QT in a fashion which results in a derivative work, then one may not redistribute the program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Exactly. Deriving from Qt and QSA is all you do when you use it. However, nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it simply requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. For instance, the new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine, as is the MIT/X11 license and others. We don't require this either: Make the complete source code of your program available to all end users Allow all users to re-use, modify and re-distribute the code Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use and re-distribution Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed when it runs When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license (which is what we mean when we says GPL licensed). [ ... ] -- and - Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The specific problem with OSD-compliance is this phrase: Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use Hello Chuck, thanks for clarifying, now I know what you are commenting on. People can and do sell GPL'ed software all of the time. People can and do sell services or charge usage fees for systems which use GPL'ed software. What you cannot do with GPL'ed software is prevent someone you've sold the software to from giving it away for free, if they so choose. And once you've redistributed the software (in either source or binary form), you must also make the complete source code available for free. I think you have a point, I'll pass this on to our legal department for review. When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license (which is what we mean when we says GPL licensed). The GPL is reciprocal or copyleft, yes. I would suggest there is a significant difference between you must use a GPL-compatible license if you redistribute a binary containing Qt and you must license your code under the GPL. I think the GPL is quite fuzzy when it comes to inhouse development. But you are right, development itself does not constitute an act relevant for the GPL. I was oversimpifying :) Regards, Volker -- Volker Hilsheimer, Support Manager Trolltech AS, Waldemar Thranes gate 98, NO-0175 Oslo, Norway ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
