Re: QPL != OSS and thus KDE "problem" is not solved :-))

[Jim Pick <jim jimpick com>]

"Khimenko Victor" <gnome@khim.sch57.msk.ru> writes:

> 18-Nov-98 07:36 you wrote:
> > This painful decision, which resulted in on-going flame wars between the
> > open-source advocates and KDE enthusiasts, was halted this morning by the
> > announcement of Troll Tech that their toolkit will indeed be open-source
> > by EVERYONE'S definition.
> 
> Unfortunatelly QPL is not OSS ! It's Free Software, this is right, but
>  1) It's not OSS.
>  2) QPL is not compatible with GPL and thus KDE problem is remain in the same
>     state as before: you could not distribute KDE unless Qt will be major
>     component of the underlaying operation system.

It is "open source", by the DFSG (a.k.a. "open-source" definition).

It probably isn't compatible with the GPL, for the same reasons that
RMS claims the MPL isn't compatible.  Remember, the GPL is a virus,
and isn't a good measuring stick to compare other free licenses
against.

I doubt the Trolls are going to be willing to make it GPL compatible,
as they'd have to give up rights to use other people's patches.
Mozilla chose a non-GPL compatible license for the same reason.

> How ESR itself was confused is unclear to me. If KDE copyright will
> be changed to QPL then yes, KDE will be free software but for now
> this is bunch of files usable on systems with Qt installed "as
> default". Before QPL and after QPL.  This is as simple as it is :-)

I basically agree there.  The GPL isn't extremely clear about defining
what is a system library.  If Debian were to ship with Qt, would GPL
apps be allowed to use it?  Or would Qt have to be installed by
default (as you suggest)?  It's quite open to interpretation.

> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
> -- cut --
> 3. Derived Works
> 
>        The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
> software.
> -- cut --

Heh, I wrote the original version of this.  Bruce just rephrased it.
:-)
 
> http://www.troll.no/qpl/
> -- cut --
> 3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve
> the integrity of the unmodified version of the Software,
> modifications must be distributed in the form of patches, and the
> following restrictions apply to each patch:
> 
>      a. Application of the patch must not modify copyright notices
>         in the Software.
> 
>      b. The patch must be explicitly licensed by the following
>         clauses without additional restriction:
> 
>         Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
>         obtaining a copy of this patch, to deal in the patch
>         without restriction, including without limitation the
>         rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
>         sublicense, and/or sell copies of the patch, subject to the
>         following conditions: Any copyright notice and this
>         permission notice must be included in all copies or
>         substantial portions of the patch.
> 
>      c. The patch must include an accurate description of the modification,
>         the date of the modification and the author of the modification.
> -- cut --
> 
> Clear ? QPL IS NOT OSS !

We're splitting hairs here.  You are right that the patches are
required to have different conditions (using the same license).  But
even with those conditions, the patches still qualify as DFSG-free
software.

Perhaps this is a bug in the DFSG/OSD?  The DFSG should really be
clearer and explicitly allow licenses that grant rights to distribute
patches under different (but still DFSG-free) conditions.

Basically, we've got a license with an "if" clause in it.  The patches
and the original Qt clause are using the same license, but have
different conditions.  Fortunately, neither part breaks the DFSG.  So
I think the license probably is OK.

> And BTW it's not make KDE problem more easy :-) You still could not
> distribute KDE if Qt is not default (non-optional) part of your OS
>:-)) Since http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> -- cut --
> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
> need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
> accompanies the executable.
> -- cut --

In Debian's case, it's open to interpretation whether or not Qt, if
shipped with an OS, qualifies for this special exception.  I
personally tend to think it qualifies.

It would be nice if the KDE folk would change their licensing to not
use the GPL, or add a rider allowing it to be linked/distributed with
QPL stuff, to eliminate the need for interpretation.

> P.S. May be "Open Source Software" was designed to be only marketing
> term but turned out that "Free Software" and "Open Source Software"
> is different things.  QPL = "Free Software", but QPL != OSS :-))

I believe that in the final, legal analysis, QPL = DFSG-free software
= OSD-free software.  ESR agrees for the OSD-free side of things.
We'll see if Debian thinks it is DFSG-free.

There is no single definition for "free software", so everybody will
have a different opinion.  I'm sure RMS has problems with it, as would
the BSD advocates.  You can't please everybody.  I'm quite happy with
the license, as it poses no major obstacles to free software authors.

Cheers,

 - Jim