Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:10:27 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Chuck Swiger" <cswiger@mac.com>, "Danny Pansters" <danny@ricin.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEOFFBAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <42C2B47D.7050302@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:47 AM >To: Danny Pansters >Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD > >Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow >restrictions on the >field of endeavor: > >"The license must not restrict anyone Chuck, The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders right to control how his work is used trumps anything else. What this means is that if you have a case where someone takes the GPL license and rewrites it to cover their work, what a court is going to rule is that while the FSF may have infringement grounds for suing the person for modifying the GPL, that still does not affect the copyright status of the work under the modified GPL. What the person would be required to do is cease infringing the GPL which means they would have to strike all references to the name GPL from their modified license, and probably significantly change sentences in it so that it's not a verbatim copy, but a 1st year legal student could do that. They would not be barred from creating TERMS that are mostly similar to the GPL's terms, yet containing additional un-GPL-like restrictions. This also means that if you happened to be using software under this modified GPL license, you would have no grounds for a defence of "well your honor his license was supposed to be less restrictive because he says it's GPL and the GPL is less restrictive than what his license terms are, so I just followed the GPL terms, not his modified terms" Now, there IS one loophole in the Qt modified GPL license. That is, you could use a program like emacs to write a C++ program that calls Qt classes. You could then distribute this program in source form, with a commercial or restrictive license, despite the fact that Trolltech's wording is: "By using this version of Qt/QSA, you agree to" and legally you would not be infringing. Any user that compiled your program with Qt would be infringing. However, if you used QtDesigner or any of that to write your C++ program, your source would be subject to the Qt license restrictions. Of course, if you removed references in your source to Qt Designer, it would be impossible for TrollTech to prove that you used it, rather than Emacs, to write your source, but that's a side issue. ;-) Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEOFFBAA.tedm>