On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote: > Firstly I showed him a copy of the GPL: > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > > and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL: > http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505266&w=2 > > * He agreed the Andreas Pour's preferred interpretation of the phrase "under > the terms of this License" was the one most likely to be used by a Judge > interpreting the GPL.
This interpretation is: ``all terms of this license which specifically
apply to the added code'', which is ``terms 1 and 2 of the license'',
as opposed to ``all the terms of this license''.
So Alice, say, can distribute KDE binaries, provided she also distributes
the complete source code (including Qt, we'll assume) under terms 1 and 2
(3a).
Now if Bob receives a copy from Alice, Alice has specifically given
him permission (in term 2) to ``modify [his] copy [...] of the Program or
any portion of it [...] and copy and distribute such modifications or work
under the terms of section 1'', in which case he can modify and distribute
Qt (a porton of the complete source code Alice gave him) as long as he:
* adds prominent notices about his changes
* distributes it under terms 1 and 2 of the GPL
(under Andreas' interpretation people can't make binaries
based on his alterations)
* makes it display a note when run interactively.
Unfortunately Alice doesn't have the right to give him this permission,
because she is only licensed to distribute Qt under the QPL, so Bob may
only ``make modifications to [Qt] and distribute [his] modifications,
in a form that is separate from [Qt]''.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgpYOcjTwJ4vZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
