On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider > > it. > > > > > be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6 > > > only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the > > > rest can have any free licence, more or less, except that there's an > > > additional requirement (6c) that might be problematic. > > > > Edmund. Why don't you reply to my above question. > > Because I have already expressed my reasoning as clearly as I can.
Mmm, not convinced. Please give me a literal interpretation of what you understand under : "application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software". > The concept of granting additional restrictions doesn't make much > sense to me. It covers retrictions on software which is not the original software or a modification thereof. It is still a derived work as it links with the library, opposed to say mere agregation on the same CD media. The LGPL presents a clear antecedent of a licence which makesa distinction betweem modified works and linked works. Mmm, didn't i already say this earlier this morning ? > Note that QPL 6 does NOT start with "If you develop ..."; it starts > with "You may develop ...". On the face of it, I can't read this as a Well, read it as : you may develop software using (linking with) the QPLed library and place it under any free licence. If you do so, and should the author ask you for a copy of it, you must provide him one (but are free to ask for the same fee you normally ask for distribution of said software). And oppose it to a licence which says : any work linking with the library must be GPLed (from the GPL). Or even : any work linking with the library must be non-comercial. > further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is, Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the Trolltech annotation, altough it has not yet been endorsed officially by the ocaml authors : 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. In essence this clause says that you may develop programs that link with Qt provided that you develop Open Source software. > then I will have to accept it as such, and then I can agree that the > QPL is not a free software licence, because I don't think the > restrictions in QPL 6 are compatible with the way the DFSG are > traditionally applied. Please be precise. You don't think that QPL 6c is compatible with the DFSG, right, and you do so under the standard DFSG #1 argumentation, namely the fact to give upstream the right to be a recipient of the linked work constitute a fee or royalty imposed on distribution. Now, if you read the whole stuff as that the source cost of data transfer can be charged, and there is nothing limiting you to charge for the binary, then it may well be that you can't claim the DFSG #1 problem though. One worry with this argument being that the cost of the binary may be set too big, thus stopping upstream from making use of the right in QPL 6c. > Anyway, I suggest you wait a bit before talking to upstream about QPL > 6, because it might turn out that the consensus is that it doesn't > matter for DFSG-freeness. I don't believe this to be so. And i will have to wait at least three weeks anyway before i speak to upstream since they are in vacations right now. Friendly, Sven Luther
