[ I'm snipping a few people from the Cc list for replies to this message
by trimming the Mail-Followups-To: header. ]
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 02:07:13AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Troll Tech's stated goal is to be compatible with all of these licenses
> which meet the Open Source Definition (and because of the origins of that
> document, the Debian Free Software Guidelines).
>
> If that is the goal, they definitely need to change the license.
> The present QPL does not meet that goal.
This is just an outline of what it says now:
1. This license applies if you distribute Qt.
2. You may distribute unmodified copies.
3. You may distribute mods if they're distinguished from the original if:
a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
b. If your mods are QPL, Troll Tech can use them
4. You may distribute binaries if:
a. You include the license
b. People can get source
c. Troll Tech can use whatever code is in the binary
5. You may use Qt with anything legally developed
6. You may develop Qt-using software if:
a. People can get the source code
b. Free redistribution is allowed
Here's where I am headed (another outline):
1. This license applies if you distribute Qt.
2. You may distribute unmodified copies.
3. You may distribute modified copies if:
a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices
b. Your mods are distinguishable from the original source. Pretty
much defining this the way the GPL does along with Troll Tech's
preferences for mods as patches when reaonable.
c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls
can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let
them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is
always a free software version of Qt.
4. You may distribute binaries if:
a. You include the license
b. People can get the source
5. You may use Qt with anything legally developed
6. You may develop Qt-using software if:
a. People can get the source code
b. Free redistribution is allowed
3(c) in my changes (it was 3(c) to start, then it was 3(b) after I
changed it, now I change it back---hey people, check it out! Musical
license clauses! <g>) needs some real effort I think. It's really the
hard part. It's easy to get people to follow it, I just have to write
it. => If you've got any suggestions I wouldn't mind hearing them.
Also, the question as to whether 5 needs to be in there at all has come
up, but I think it does need to be there. I think it does, the actual
language is and would remain:
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
by others.
However I think it doesn't matter really considering that if the
application is non-free and you're distributing it linked to Qt then you
have no right to distribute the code in the first place so nobody else
would be using it anyway. Of course, it doesn't matter if it would be
non-free or not if you never distribute it because you haven't
distributed it. => But in that case, everyone who has a copy of the
binary also has the source (you) in which case I guess it doesn't matter
does it. <g> I am hesitant to remove it as it provides more incentive
for authors not to abuse the license as nobody else would be allowed to
use the results anyway.
> Using the GPL would cause that to be not easily possible.
>
> I propose that they include the GPL as an alternative, either in the
> same way Perl offers the choice of the GPL or the Artistic License, or
> in the same way that the LGPL says you can use the GPL instead.
>
> That would be compatible with the GPL, and also compatible with other
> free software licenses if the present QPL is.
I thought about that actually. At the time the results of doing it that
way didn't work out well in my mental simulation. How does the above set
of changes stack up? I think if I can get 3(c) figured out it should be
GPL compatible.
--
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
