On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote: > Chris Lawrence wrote: > > > If you have something to say, say it to the lists. > > Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made > rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or > "The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the GPL this is > required. But, alas, I have failed :-(. While I could respect your different > reading of the GPL, I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking > with > XFree code but not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except > by > claiming that the XFree code can be licensed under the GPL. When I went > through > a thorough exercise of showing why this in fact can't be done (my post bearing > Message-ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), nobody has responded, perhaps b/c > you agree that I am right. > Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it preserves the copyright notice) under the sublicensing permission. In particular, the XFree86 copyright notice's permissions only apply to (a) copies you get without another license, and (b) to the original work (not derivatives). The fact that it permits copying of their code is a waiving (mostly) their copyright protections. It doesn't invalidate any other agreements you may entered regarding the code. It also doesn't invalidate different licenses on derivative works, particularly those with sufficient copyrightable content to be protectable. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal to distribute the exact same expression under multiple copyright licenses. I don't have to "re-license" all currently existing versions of the code to comply with the GPL on a version that includes or is derivative of some GPL'ed work. I only have to distribute that version under the GPL. You should really either (a) consult a lawyer, (b) do some legal reading on IP/contract law/torts, and/or (c) take some law classes. If you insist on continuing to debate what many of us consider obvious (e.g. that X licensed code may be redistributed under a proprietary license) then it would be best for you to post (in a relatively short way) your basic assumptions that are leading you to your conclusions. My wager is that we'll disagree with one of your assumptions, so maybe we'll get somewhere more fruitful (no guarantees though).
Lynn
