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

[Jim Pick <jim jimpick com>]

[ I wonder if I should trim the cc:'s?  My apologies to anybody who feels
  they are getting spammed. ]

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

> JP> It is "open source", by the DFSG (a.k.a. "open-source" definition).
> 
> It's not "Open Source" by "Open Source Definition".

I'd suggest discussing your interpretation with Eric Raymond and Bruce
Perens.  They seem to think that it does qualify.
 
> JP> Perhaps this is a bug in the DFSG/OSD?  The DFSG should really be
> JP> clearer and explicitly allow licenses that grant rights to distribute
> JP> patches under different (but still DFSG-free) conditions.
> 
> May be. This is will be significant modifications in OSD IMO. Since now you
> could not distribude modified QPL-copyrighted software (or software derived
> from QPL-copyrighted software) at all. Under ANY conditions. You could
> distribute ONLY patches. To me this is NOT splitting hair: you could
> distribute modified version or you could not. AFAIK this was main problem
> with Minix back in 1991: you could distribute patches but not patched
> Minix itself :-)) Not if I'm want to do this any time soon but this is
> important point.

I don't think this is the same thing.  You can distribute the Qt
sources in a pristine tarball, along with a patch.  They just won't
let you make your own tarball with the patches applied already.  This
isn't a problem for the Debian source or SRPM packaging systems, which
can handle pristine sources.

Ugly, but that was a compromise solution we explicitly allowed when we
wrote the DFSG (which become the Open Source Definition).
 
> JP> Basically, we've got a license with an "if" clause in it.  The patches
> JP> and the original Qt clause are using the same license, but have
> JP> different conditions.  Fortunately, neither part breaks the DFSG.  So
> JP> I think the license probably is OK.
> 
> I'm not know much about DFSG. I'm know about OSD and QPL. OSD REQUIRES
> modifications and derived works to be distributable. QPL FORBIDS it.
> It's clear as it is. (Read QPL carefully: you could not distribude modified
> version at all -- only patches!).

I think you've got it wrong.  You CAN distribute modified versions -
as long as it comes in two parts - the pristine tarball from
TrollTech, and a separate patch file.

Cheers,

 - Jim