Shriramana Sharma wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
1)
Please explain how this is legal.
Qt is copyrighted by Trolltech. A license provides me rights that
normally only the copyright owners have. Any permission the license does
not provide me I do not have. I have permission to create a derivative
work ("my work") only so long as I distribute it under the GPL.
Trolltech has not given me permission to distribute my work under the
BSDL. The fact that I have also distributed my work under the GPL is
immaterial. I cannot do something I don't have permission for. So how
can I license my work under the BSDL at all?
2)
My intention in putting the work under the BSDL is, evidently:
"I am currently incapable of making this work Qt-independent. But if any
programmer should come that makes this work Qt-independent, then the
work may from then onwards be distributed under the BSDL."
But the question above stands. I can't license my work *as a whole*
under the BSDL. GPL-v2 section 2 para 4 says:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License,"
So should I say:
"This work as a whole is licensed under the GPL. This work or any part
of it which is or can be modified to be Qt-independent may be
distributed in such a Qt-independent form under the BSDL also".
Is such verbosity really necessary, or is it understood? If it would be
illegal to say:
"This work as a whole is licensed under both the GPL and the BSDL"
then I may have no choice but to resort to such verbosity.
Further, in its Qt-dependent state, if I distribute a compiled form of
my work, then would it still be dual-licensed in that form? Or would it
be *only* under the GPL? If yes, then does dual-licensing apply only to
source forms?
Thanks for your patience,
Shriramana Sharma.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
