On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for > analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my > tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in > followups to each of them individually. > > Also, for clarification of the discussion, let's call A the upstream author, M > the modificator, and U the end user receiving code from M. > > 2) QPL 6c. This, as all of QPL 6, apply to external works linked with a > QPLed library, and not really to modified version thereof. QPL 6c means that > A is allowed to request a copy of this external work, under an otherwise > free licence chosen by M.
| 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: Now comes the second complication. This entry covers software which is not a modified version of the original software, but which links with it. This is still a derived work in our way of argumenting, which is also the position of the FSF over the GPL, but it is not a modified version of the software. Modifications are only covered by the previous points. The annotation confirms this : | | This is a license designed for libraries, therefore we must also talk about | | application programs or other libraries (components) that are linked with the | | software, as these include portions of Qt when in binary form. Of course, | | given the term "link", there is no differentiation between static and dynamic | | linking. The mention of static and dynamic linking is another clue to what is meant as linking, and i don't think there can be a doubt about this. | | In essence this clause says that you may develop programs that link with Qt | | provided that you develop Open Source software. This already points to Trolltech's intention in the below. Some would argue that this discriminate against proprietary application writters, but the same applies to the GPL. Notice also the mention of "These items", which clearly make reference to the "application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software", and there is no doubt that this is also the understanding of "these items" that will be used in the rest of QPL 6. | 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. The application must be acompanied by source code. This is basically the exact content of DFSG #2, except for the mention of cost of data transfer. Again here, see the reference to "the items" mentioned in the QPL 6 header. | 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. Furthermore you must give the recipient of the items the right do redistribute original or modified versions, in both binary and source. Basically you have to give the rights of DFSG #1 to #3. | 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. Now comes the second issue under discussion. Here these items clearly relates to the "application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software" mentioned in the QPL 6 header, and there can be no doubt of that. The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed, but not openly distributed (in which case he just needs to get the public version). One could argue again that this would mean a breach of the DFSG #1, since the right of the author to those software would be considered a fee or royalty, but the same argumentation as above makes me reject that. Furthermore, the distribution of these items is governed by the QPL 6a and 6b, and thus you are supposed to be sending it under a free licence, and are free to ask for the cost of data transfer. Some claim that the QPL 6a applies only to source, but if you push this further, it means that the "without any charge" also applies only to the source, and thus you are free to charge the upstream author a fee for the program, and this would then be only a clause disallowing the modificator to refuse to sell the software linking with the library to the author, and thus the fee or royalty involved is again a moot point. Finally, in all of the QPL 6 clause, the licence has just to be free, and is otherwise of the linked work author's chosing. Friendly, Sven Luther
