I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0]. Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception)
* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
* libstdc++5 (GPL)
* libx11-6 (MIT/X)
* libxext6 (MIT/X)
My question is this. Is Debian accepting QT3 under the GPL or the
QPL? According the FSF FAQ on licenses [1], the QPL says that
modified sources must be distrubted as patches, and that linking
to GPL code requires a license exception. However, it gets a bit
more complex. I know that this has more or less been discussed
before [2], but I think the circumstances have changed.
Specifically:
(1) is the exception for libgcc1 sufficient for regexplorer to link?
(2) is QT3 in Debian via QPL or GPL?
(3) is libstdc++5 actually GPL w/o exception?
It seems that if any of those fails, then regexplorer can't link to
them unless it is relicensed.
Additionally, it seems like QPL licensed code can't be in main (which
may or may not affect QT and any packages that depend on it, depending
on how Debian chooses to make QT available), at least under the version
used by regexplorer [3] & [4]:
QPL:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications:
ME:
Ok. This is not reall a problem, since we distribute source as a
.orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz. This is clearly seperate.
QPL:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in
the Software.
ME:
No problem here either.
QPL:
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial
developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future
versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under
these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.
ME:
Does this mean that the Debian-specific packaging must be QPL licensed?
It is a patch modification to the source. I presume that non-exclusive
means Debian can continue to distribute the modifications themselves
under other terms, e.g., the GPL. But, I think this implies the
modifications must at least be dual/licensed.
QPL:
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided
that you meet these restrictions:
ME:
Ok. At least there is a chance to distribute the modified binaries.
QPL:
a. You must include this license document in the distribution.
ME:
No sweat.
QPL:
b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable
forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code
to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any
charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in
the distribution explaining this.
ME:
Does this even comply with DFSG? This would imply that if make a CD
which includes regexplorer (which is in main), then I can't charge
money for it above the cost of duplication.
QPL:
c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the
machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.
ME:
Not sure how that affects Debian's distribution of the package.
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am trying to wrap my
head around this. Also, please CC me on all replies, as I am not
subcribed to -legal.
-Roberto
[0] http://pacakges.debian.org/regexplorer
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00203.html
[3]
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/regexplorer/regexplorer/QPL.html?rev=1.1.1.1
[4]
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0.1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
