$3000 "Reward" for KDE/Debian Compatibility 275
OPEN LETTER TO THE KDE PROJECT
Dear KDE team,in the recent edition of Linux Weekly News of 1st June 2000 the old debate of the potential inclusion of KDE2 to the Debian GNU/Linux distribution is discussed again. Even though KDE2 and QT2 are free software according to all standards (incl. DFSG), KDE2 is not planned to be included in the forthcoming Debian releases 2.2 (aka Potato) and 2.3 (aka Woody), because the QPL licence of QT2 is not compatible with the GPL licence of most of the KDE2 code. An elaboration of Debian's stance on KDE and QT licencing can be found here and here Debian does have a very strict position on such licensing issues, and even if some people may think that their position is somewhat nittygritty, it is a clear point of view that distinguishes Debian from commercial distributions (e.g. Redhat or SuSE).
The sad thing is that many people who like KDE very much, also prefer the Debian distribution because of their very commitment to the free software spirit, because of their high quality standards, because of their superior package management system, and because of their vast number of available packages (about 4500 in Potato). Therefore, it would be highly desirable for KDE AND Debian to solve the mentioned licence problems with the release of KDE2. Many discussions in the past have lead to nothing but frustration on both sides, because none of the involved parties was able to agree on a compromise.
It is possible that the licence issue could be partly resolved by Debian by the simple assumption that all KDE authors who have released their code under GPL have implicitly agreed to link their GPLed code to the QPLed Qt toolkit. However, Debian will not make this assumption, since it would weaken their stance on licence issues, and since it would also not resolve the conflict with third party GPLed code that was used by the KDE project.
Thus, there is only one realistic solution to the problem: All GPLed code in KDE2 has to include a licence that amends the GPL with the following exception clause: "This program is distributed under the GNU GPL v2, with the additional permission that it may be linked against all versions of Troll Tech's Qt library that are distributed under the QPL, and is distributed without the GPL applying to Qt". Of course changing all licences accordingly and contacting all referring authors of the code involves a lot of boring work that is not very attractive for dedicated coders, which might be the reason that the KDE project did not perform this rather simple solution yet. Therefore, I would like to stipulate the appropriate actions by offering a private donation of 3.000,- US-$ to the KDE project, in case (and only in case) that the licence of the official release of KDE2 (all official packages incl. koffice) will be modified in the mentioned way, so that KDE2 can be included in Debian-Woody at last.
The Debian project has already stated in the past that they would of course include KDE as soon as the licence conflicts are resolved. Since the Debian maintainer Ivan E. Moore II has already made inofficial Debian packages of KDE1.x and KDE2beta for the KDE Packaging Project he could likely become the maintainer of the future official packages.
I hope that my offer could contribute to a prospering common future of KDE and Debian for the benefit of the Linux community. It would be nice if I could receive something like an "official" answer by the KDE project concerning my offer. If KDE should agree, I will send a signed contract that guarantees that my donation will be immediately made as soon as KDE2 is released with the Debian compatible licence changes. It is up to the KDE project how my donation would be used; it could be used for any purpose of the KDE project, or even as a personal reward ("salary") for the referring KDE persons that will make the work of the licence changes.
With kind regards,
Guenter Bechly
P.S. Please note that I only speak on behalf of myself and that I am not representing any involved party. I am just an dedicated Linux user who happens to like Debian and KDE (and Gnome too btw ;-). Copies of this letter have been posted to Mosfet, KDE.com, TDYC, Debian, LWN, LinuxToday, and Slashdot.
--
Dr. Guenter Bechly
Staatliches Museum fuer Naturkunde Stuttgart
Abt. Palaeontologie - Sekt. Bernstein
Email (office): bechly@gmx.de
Email (private): GBechly@gmx.de
I think you need to do some more reading... (Score:2)
The QPL is not compatible with the GPL because it imposes additional restrictions on distribution: Troll Tech can demand that you give them a copy, with source, and you have no choice but to comply.
If the KDE project included third-party GPLed software in KDE without permission, is that the fault of the third parties? Or of Debian? As I remember, this was the major complaint from the GIMP people; the KIMP people seemed to feel it was their right to violate the GPL on the GIMP by linking it to Qt, and they didn't even bother to discuss it with the GIMP people. The archives even contain some discussion about making the GIMP toolkit-independent and adding the license exception; I think this petered out after KDE showed their utter disregard for the rights of the GIMP team.
As for what KDE needs to do to "appease" Debian, the clause in the offer is what Debian has repeatedly asked for from KDE since the adoption of the QPL. This has not changed, ever. Official Debian developers have even developed packages, and the whole team stands ready to incorporate KDE the moment the license is changed - again, as we have been since the QPL was adopted.
As I have said before, so I say again: licenses are important. It's stupid to make your stated wishes on your software incoherent, and it's rude (not to mention illegal) to ignore other people's stated wishes on their software out of convenience. Other people may be able to accept the risk that results from such stupidity and rudeness; Debian is not in a position to do so. But isn't it better to just stop being stupid and rude?
Re:Cheers to Debian, but.... (Score:2)
The QPL (v2.0) *is* free
It depends on your defination of what free is. Personally, if it isn't under the GPL or BSD type license, IMHO it isn't free, it is a company trying to get some cool buzzwords for their marketing department, like Open Souce.
Can I modify the Qtlib for my own personl and commerical purposes and make a profit off it, or change it any way I see fit and then distrubate the re-modified version, even if this competes with Troll Tech on a commerical level?
Just depends on what your defination of free is... I think we are differant in that aspect.
this part has nothing to do with the above post, but I will post it here since I see no better place.
I really respect the Debian team for holding strong to their ideals of what is "pure" and how to keep it that way. They have been doing an excellent job in this ascpect for the last years, and also are making a hell of a distro in the meantime.
some people are complaining that Debian is nitt-picking over a "minor" issuse. I don't see it that way. I seen it as a test for Debian, what are they going to do? Will they stick to the game plan and what their defination of "free" is, or will they bow down to compete with the commerical world... Debian is like Jesus walking around in the desert, they know it ALL could be their's, but at what price?
KDE2 looks like a very seducative temptation, I know the Debian team has been looking at it naked in the shower from a small hole in the wall, will Debian abstain from sin, or will they need a tissue?
Come on, the name of the company is Troll Tech, doesn't there NAME tell your something? Just for disclaimer purposes, I have nothing against the KDE team or the Debian team, and not really sure what to make of Troll Tech...
Sometimes comfort has to be exchanged for freedom
Re:So, why....? (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
nojw
Re:Have you seen this penguin? (Score:2)
the bonus when I thought it was inappropriate, but I failed to come up
with any good demarcation of when to apply the bonus and when not to,
so now out of laziness I normally don't suppress it.
Maybe there should be a karma cost associated with use of the +1
bonus?
Not true... (Score:3)
As has been said numerous times, the QPL is more restrictive than the GPL. Therefore, it is not compatible.
Re:What's going on here? (Score:2)
You are correct. Usually, I chide other posters for not reading the story. This time, it seems like Taco is the one who's not reading what he's posting. Taco's question about a deb and a sources.list is most certainly answered by the letter (as well as the fact that such debs and sources.list already exist).
Read the Licenses involved. (Score:2)
The Debian problem is a matter of semantics. Parts of KDE are still under the GPL and must remain that way. They include bits and pieces of other GPLed software ( KFloppy comes to mind ). Debian asks the KDE teem to change the license on this software. They can't do that since it belongs to other people who they may not even be able to find.
In all this dispute and haggling the only time I have ever seen someone say "This is *my* GPLed software and I don't want it linked to QT." was with that whole Gime
Other than that it's just people blabbering at each other about stuff they don't understand. The Debian teem thinks the QPL is not GPL compatible. Other distributions think it is. Having read the GPL and QPL personally ( Most of the people talking here have not ) I realize two things. The GPL doesn't require linking to GPLed software. It simply requires linking to software that allows distribution of modified versions for free ( I.e.. OSS compliant ). That may not have been RMS' intention but it is how the GPL was written and since he had professional Legal help the letter of the GPL stands.
kde-licensing@kde.org is the mailing list where the QPL was debated and refined. This isn't a legal or technical isue. It's a personal problem and the KDE teem canot do anything to apeas the Debian faithfull.
Re:Debian: The ultimate corporation. (Score:2)
In the case of KDE, they have (so far) not managed to make a coherent statement about how they want KDE distributed. This is because they use the GPL, but link to Qt, which is not GPL-compatible.
Now, many people have taken the risk of "assuming" a few extra clauses in KDE's license. Most likely, that's safe, and for commercial distros with legal departments, that may be an acceptable risk.
Debian, however, is a legal fiction, with no assets. If we assume a risk like this, we are in reality causing our distributors to assume that risk, since in all likelihood they would be the ones sued. We don't feel it proper to put our distributors at risk; therefore, we don't incorporate software that doesn't have a clear license. KDE falls into that category.
The problem is that KDE hasn't made a coherent statement about their wishes that we can respect. Once they do (by incorporating a clause like the one in the offer, or switching to Artistic, or whatever), KDE will be incorporated into Debian as quickly as we can get it uploaded.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
If Harmony existed, then there would be no licensing problems at all, and KDE would be in main right now.
It's the GPL which needs changing (Score:2)
KDE is a "derived work" of QT, not the other way round.
The QPL poses no problems for the distribution of KDE under the GPL.
It's the GPL which not only requires that all derived works be GPLed, but also that all works from which the GPLed software is derived must also be GPLed. This is (IMO) plainly stupid.
The author of GPLed software should be able to choose to base his/her software on whatever libraries they damn well please, as long as THOSE LIBRARIES allow his/her software to be distributed under the GPL.
This particular clause does nothing to perpetuate the cause of free software. In fact it restricts those who might otherwise wish to GPL their programs, because they used Qt, or some other non-GPL library, and thus potentially reduces the amount of free software in the world, or (in this case) the use and distribution of that software.
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
One way that proprietary UNIX vendors get around this is by including the GNU utilities on a separate "unofficial" or "unsupported" CD. MS could do that.
inclusion (Score:2)
I believe Stormix had kde working in specifications that might be useful for this.
javajawa# sleep
No and no (Score:2)
Second, he spells out quite clearly what is required to "win":
I have no idea why Taco said "I wonder if just hosting the
Jay (=
Re:For someone who doesn't know... (Score:2)
The license is your statement of what you allow other people to do with your software. If the GPL doesn't respect your wishes, don't use it.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:3)
Certainly. There's no conflict at all. We will support the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. We will also decry the strong enforcements of copyright if it is in our interest to do so. I can't imagine you see this as a problem. Law, morality and rights have nothing to do with it. Only our own personal needs and wants are important.
Now go away, you're making me think, you reprobate.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
Different people's opinions. But anyway, different contexts too. Many of the Debian people who think it is illegal to include KDE in fact *use* KDE personally. And anyway I'm sure you'd agree that they'd be insane to distribute Metallica albums illegally so there's no dichotomy.
Re:It's the GPL which needs changing (Score:2)
The other reason why this doesn't work:
Imagine that Microsoft modified the EULA on the Windows SDK to state:
"You may, additionally, link any of these libraries to code covered by the GNU General Public License. Doing so does not grant you any special rights to the source code of the Microsoft products licensed herein."
Now the SDK is explicitly allowed to link to, say, gettext - at least from MS's perspective. Does that make it legal for MS to incorporate gettext into Visual C++? Of course not! This is because the GPL is being violated here.
The QPL situation is a less extreme example of the same thing.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
You obviously count the executives at Red Hat as GPL zealots, then. But you think it's fine for Troll to use whatever license they want for QT, so why do you object to Red Hat and Debian's right to not redistribute QT if they think it might land them in hot water?
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
Disctributed != Standard Component
And QT is by no means a standard component. Even if you think it is, others will disagree making the legal situation ambiguous. Hence Debian's reluctance.
Whatever happened to Harmony? (Score:3)
As I recall it got pretty much abandoned when Trolltech (hehe, funny name) loosened the license on QT to bring it into OSS compliance.
Obviously though, QT licensing is still causing a problem. Would it really be that difficult to finish Harmony? Or to create a new, similar, GPL GUI toolkit? And since when has 'difficult' ever stopped the free software community from accomplishing big things?
Is Harmony still around?
Re:Why does he want the license change? (Score:2)
Not the UK or Ireland, but AFAIK everywhere else. (Of course, only for currency
Debian: The ultimate corporation. (Score:2)
One of the reasons for keeping it (linux/debian) free was to stop those nasty corporates taking it over, destroying it with small print and legal matters. Yet debian, in my very humble opinion, seems to be heading for that very direction.
Don't get me wrong, I like Debian, but common sense seems to be left behind here. This isn't a case of "Debain doesn't like KDE because KDE isn't free", if that was the reason then fair enough, instead it's "Debian doesn't like KDE because Debains license doesnt like a little line in KDEs license". Is something like that really worth spending time over when we could all be doing something (coding, looking for porn, etc) instead?
Re:Whatever happened to Harmony? (Score:2)
The reason the free software community can accomplish big things, is because it cares to. Harmony never had a lot of developers, and most left after the QPL. It's also a moving target, like the W32 API is - since KDE refuses to care about Harmony, it'll be an enternal chase just to stay in one place (to compile KDE).
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
Ignore them, and the KDE Project will keep getting nipped in the but on this.
Re:Not everyone understands the Debian claims (Score:2)
I'm also not sure what Lineo's IPO filing has to do with anything. As I mentioned somewhere else, companies with legal departments (like Lineo) may consider things to be acceptable risks that others (like Debian) may not.
Re:I think you need to do some more reading... (Score:2)
Re:The GPL Needs Changing (Score:2)
When authors release software under the GPL, unless they put in a specific allowance for linking to Qt, it is arguable illegal for a distribution company to link that GPL code to Qt and distribute the result.
One of the following must occur:
a) Trolltech release Qt under the BSD or LGPL or similar license (not gonna happen)
b) Every contributor of GPL code that requires Qt to relicense their code under the "GPL + Qt exception" license (or BSD or Artistic or similar license)
In other words, you are right, Qt license allows you to use GPL, but the GPL, _unmodified_, does not allow you to distribution it compiled with Qt. So the "GPL needs to change." But you can't just change it under decree. The authors who released GPL software for Qt made a mistake. That is what this $3000 is for... to get someone to try to get everyone who contributed to KDE to modify the terms of their licensing. Instead of GPL: GPL + Qt exception clause, or a different license.
I would much prefer if Trolltech would make Qt LGPL. The free software community is a community of people who share code with each other. They are not sharing as equal partners. However, there is no need for me to protest too much, because I just do what I do when I see any software I don't like, I use something else. Trolltech can do what they want, that's their right, but they aren't going to get me to go along with it.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:4)
At any rate, your analysis fails. Section 3 starts out:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following..."
So Sections 1 and 2 apply to any distribution you make under Section 3. And, of course, Section 2 (in the part you forgot to quote) states:
"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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Now, this argument would work for source-only distribution; it's perfectly legal to distribute source. But binaries, when distributed, are linked to Qt, thus forming a "work based on the Program" (namely, a complete working binary distribution of KDE) - either by physical static linking (copies of Qt code embedded in each executable) or through binaries that will not function without a copy of Qt, and incorporate Qt into themselves at run time.
To make this perfectly clear, you could likely do one of the following:
- Distribute KDE source.
- Distribute KDE binaries, dynamically linked to Qt but not accompanying Qt. In other words, a broken implementation of KDE that will do nothing.
Finally, if I may: Let's dispense with the hostility. Don't you think we have enough slamming on other people's views, without such volatile language? The old saw applies here well: If you don't like Debian, don't use it.
Re:You need to read it again... (Score:2)
Re:Why this blasted §6, c clause. (Score:2)
They are free to be motivated in this way, and to make such demands; this does not make it any less incompatible.
Re:For someone who doesn't know... (Score:2)
"You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
The GPL does not force you to distribute; it only forces you to distribute source when you do distribute. The QPL, on the other hand, does force you to distribute in this one special case: when Troll asks, you must give them a copy. This is an "additional restriction", and therefore is incompatible with the GPL.
(The "when distributed" clause is not enough of an "out" here. If I give a copy of my cool new GPLed program to my friend, and the two of us don't want to give a copy to Troll, we don't have to - unless, of course, the program is linked to Qt.)
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
Not under copyright law. And the GPL falls under copyright law. Deriving an application from a library in the programming sense is a very different thing from the copyright sense.
If, and only if, a library can be
That is not what the GPL says. The clause in question refers to "anything that is normally distributed
You need to read it again... (Score:2)
Re:Read the Licenses involved. (Score:2)
Free Software is neither "free beer" nor "free speech". It is "free use", a much different thing.
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
If you don't believe that information should be a form of property, then fine. But at least have the courtesy of living up to your own standards by using the public domain instead of the GPL. The GPL may have fewer restrictions upon its users actions than the typical proprietary license, but it STILL restricts the users, something that you yourself just called immoral.
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
Qt does not have to be a system library or a standard component. It only has to be distributed along with the operating system. The rational for the clause is quite easy to understand: the user does not need to purchase extra software in order to use the GPLd package.
Re:Isn't QT a system library? (Score:2)
"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."
This is part of a larger paragraph that requires, among other things, that source must be distributed, and that the compilation must itself be licensed under the GPL. This is where the restriction comes from that the license for components cannot be more restrictive than the GPL; otherwise, you couldn't license the compilation (your code plus the other code needed) under the GPL.
It's not legal to write GPLed apps for Motif and distribute them with Motif. It is legal, however, to distribute GPLed Motif apps separately.
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
Re: The GPL Needs Changing (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious that the KDE project's goals don't totally mesh with the GPL; otherwise, they wouldn't be using Qt at all. So, my question is: Why did they pick the GPL when they didn't agree with it?
Qt is Free by *Debian's* definition (Score:2)
It is a license incompatibility issue, and nothing else.
--
Wrong Solution: Combine Corel and Debian (Score:2)
Make a merged distribution of Debian and Corel lite and make an instalation script, which either adds Corel KDE to after the Debian installation or the otherway arund.
No Licence cosmetics is necessary, since it makes a ".dpkg" distribution that does not blame Debian.org for not being GPL othodox.
Which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, doesn't it?
Did I just win $3k? Tell me why not!
Well, since you asked, let's look at that open letter again. (You did read the open letter that was posted in the story, right?)
Well, given that:
1) you have not changed the licenses of the various KDE packages in the mentioned way
and
2) you are not the KDE project
then no, you don't get US$3,000.
Jay (=
(Why are people wasting their time thinking up ways to get the $3,000? It's not a contest!)
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
The debian-legal list has the curious habit of revisting topics again and again. Of course the matter was not cleared in everyone's mind, such things never are. But when an issue gets hashed to death in that forum to the point that people start quibbling over the meaning of "is", some shmuck always comes along with "Hey! What about clause 13c?", and off it goes into another direction. One will not see this with a casual perusal of the list. It is a pattern only seen over a period of time.
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program
KDE and Qt are not distributed as a whole. And Qt is not a work based on KDE (the Program). Just prior to your quote, it states "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works" The only parts of KDE which actually include QPLd files as part of the package are licensed under the LGPL instead of the GPL.
Don't you think we have enough slamming on other people's views, without such volatile language?
I have been much nicer and far politer here than most (not all) Debian developers have ever been to me. The debian-legal list is the only mailing list I have *ever* been on where vitriolic and vulgar hostilities have spilled over into my private mail. I have had to quit the debian-legal list simply because I want to keep the discussions on the list where they belong instead of spilling over into my mail box.
I didn't mean to be hostile in my post. I may have been snide and sarcastic, but I didn't intend hostility.
Cheers to Debian, but.... (Score:2)
I agree with their stand that KDE shouldn't be included. I have but one question. How is it different really if all you need to do to install KDE is race up to the KDE website and grab the debs, and install them. If you really want to use KDE and Debian, then do that, but don't try to move Debian away from it's stated goals.
Ben
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
I don't suppose it matters much anyway as there are other distributions that cater for my wants and needs. That's the nice thing about having a selection of distributions to choose from that differentiate themselves by targeting different audiences. Debian are quite unique in this regard too in that their differentiator is that they shape their product according to a perception of ethics rather than a money driven desire for market share. How many commercial companies can you think of that behave that way?
So though I am not a Debian user, I'm happy that they exist. Wouldn't the Linux experience be a boring one if all the distributions were the same.
Macka
Re: Why does he want the license change? (Score:2)
- TrollTech can publish their code under any license they feel like, period.
- Anyone who believes (as Debian do) that software freedom resembles speach not beer can tell them to fsck themselves, period.
You use BSD, I use Linux, and the simple fact that that TrollTech want to revert to the BSD license if neccessary simply shows that they have the interests of business at heart. Debian has the interests of Free software development at heart. Distributing KDE with a Linux distribution weakens the GPL by publically breaking it. The GPL and BSD license allows you to write programs for Windows, or for someone else to port your funky BSD or Linux program to Windows, TrollTech have isolated the M$ OS for their own gain (well it is 90% of the market?) and this is why they shunned the BSD and GPL. I hate the M$ operating systems, but I believe in software freedom (speech NOT beer) and think it is obnoxious to say you can use this as long as you don't try to use it with Windows. If the situation was reversed (say M$ released a toolkit as source code and said that it could be used, modified and anything else you want so long as it is only ever used on their Operating Systems or never used on Linux without a licensing fee) you can imagine the outcry on Slashdot.Bottom line the Debian zealots (and other GPL zealots in general) are protecting the M$ operating system and fighting for its rights. Yes the problem is the GPL, the GPL however is not about linux or even *nix, it is about making sure that everything we all work on together is safe forever. Let all Linux vendors take note and stop distributing QT with GPL software (make the user download and install QT if they want to use the KDE aps that are distributed with the system).
Conspriracy Theory: Are TrollTech deliberatly setting out to destroy the GPL so they can release a closed version of the KDE suite for any OS they want?
Not a flame, just calling it as I see it.
Opportunity for another Mandrake ... (Score:3)
It strikes me that there could be a sizable business opportunity for someone to push out a KDE based debian ditribution. Of course there is already Corel, but they seem to be firmly targeting the Windows user / newbie market which isn't exacly the same memespace that Debian inhabits.
A company like Stormix [stormlinux.com] would be well positioned to roll out a "KDE edition", and in fact they already include KDE with their product.
There's always room for more distributions, and if there really is this much demand, it strikes me as an ideal business opputunity.
Re:Nonfree no good (Score:2)
Not true - didn't you read the letter? There's a specific addition to the GPL in KDE's license which says that the code may be linked with Qt.
--
free software (Score:2)
Re:Have you seen this penguin? (Score:2)
Like this [slashdot.org].... One moderator pulled it down (troll), another pulled it back (funny).
Sig11 is OK, it's the segfault overspill on
Go ahead, 5kr1p7 k1dd135 with moderator points, have this down as -1 flamebait or troll because you can't take the sound of free speech. I'm posting at +2 because I at least defend Sig11's right to try & be funny. Did I laugh? No. But what I find funny and what other people find funny are two different things, and I'm sure Sig11's post gave someone a chuckle somewhere.
And yes, there is a karma cost of posting at +2... You can lose 1 more point if modded down...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:inclusion (Score:2)
~Tim
--
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
However, according to RMS [gnu.org], the QPL (and the use of Qt) is in fact incompatible with the GPL. RMS is possibly a bit biased, but he did write the GPL, so either he's lying or at least the intention of the GPL makes it incompatible with linking to Qt. (This doesn't mean there aren't any unintentional loop holes). You claim that it is legal to distribute GPL'd programs that link to Motif (without adding an exception, I assume), do you have any examples? IIRC emacs (at some point?) was distributed with an added exception that explicitly allowed linking to Motif.
What I feel is most disturbing about your post is that you seem to imply that the Debian developers are using the legal (non)issue just as an excuse for not distributing KDE, since they simply hate KDE for some unspecified reason. This sounds more like a conspiracy theory than reality to me. Debian is the most open and democratic open-source project I know of. Anyone can join Debian -- just say "Hi, I want to package foo", and you will be given one vote like everyone else. If Debian is excluding KDE driven by hatred, that means that a majority of Debian developers either share these feelings, don't care or simply aren't aware of it. What makes this even more unrealistic is the fact that AFAICT Debian is the distro that has the largest variety and alternatives of packages. Just look at the list of texteditors or window managers in Debian. It seems more likely that the evil Debian developers you discribe would say: "we will only include $MY_FAVORITE_EDITOR. All other editors have broken licenses.".
As I said earlier, I can't really tell if distributing KDE is legal or not. But I think it's pretty clear that your description of Debian is unfair and untrue.
Note: I am use Debian, but I'm not a developer, and I neither use nor develope KDE or Gnome.
Re:Incompatibility? (Score:2)
The obvious solution would be to do this:
(State the GPL.)
As a special exception, you are allowed to link this program with programs distributed under the QPL. When redistributing this program, you may, at your option, choose to keep this special exception or not to.
Incompatibility? (Score:4)
As I understand it, the GPL states that it must be attached, unaltered, to derivative works.
I assume that the QTclause GPL would also have to be attached to derivative works.
As this is the case, I think we have something akin to the "obnoxious advertising clause" in the old BSD liscenses.
For that reason, I'd have to say that this "obnoxious linking clause" is a bad thing.
On the other hand, I'm not sure why the Debian people won't include KDE in the first place.
So I guess my vote is, ignore the bribe, throw the KDE in as "nonfree".
Taco! WTF? (Score:2)
Thanks for including the letter so we didn't have to dig very far.
--
blue
Re:For someone who doesn't know... (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I'm a Debian developer.
Sigh... (Score:2)
I wrote to the FSF recently about this problem of license incompatibilities (it seems that every free software license that is out there is incompatible with the GPL) and whether anything could be done about it. My specific suggestion was to introduce a license in between the GPL (that allows linking only with software that is compatible with the GPL) and the LGPL (that allows linking with any kind of software); this "intermediate" GPL would allow linking with any software that satisfies some specific Free Software guidelines (included in the license).
The answer I got (from Bradley Kuhn) was rather unsatisfactory. He explained that this license either wouldn't work or wouldn't provide a true copyleft. Now I fail to see why that is. I didn't want to press the issue because I know he has more important things to do than answer my question, but I'd be glad if someone could explain this.
Another pet idea of mine: would it be possible for someone to formalize this whole license mumbo-jumbo in mathematical logic so that all the discussions which use vague rhetorical terms as to what can or cannot be done, can be made precise once and for all? And so we can write computer programs that will say definitely: "thou shallst not link this with that"? Formalizing this particular area of law seems doable.
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
When you say "Copyright Law", you mean the Copyright Law of which country? Remember that there are many countries, and many different copyright laws, and if your arguments fail in a single one, you lose. Even if we limit ourselves to countries that signed the Berne convention and the Geneva convention (a reasonable international unification of copyright), we are still left with a great number of national variants: can you seriously claim that you know all these laws well enough so as to be sure of what you are saying? I doubt it. I even doubt anyone knows all these laws and the specifics of computer science well enough to make a good case.
Please remember that licenses such as the GPL are not simply supposed to work for the country in which the code was written, but for the entire world. Please remember that Debian should be legal in all these countries.
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
KDE and Qt are not distributed as a whole. And Qt is not a work based on KDE (the Program). Just prior to your quote, it states "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works" The only parts of KDE which actually include QPLd files as part of the package are licensed under the LGPL instead of the GPL.
Which, as I said, gives you your two choices: source, or unusable binaries. :-)
The problem is that you are creating "a work based on the Program". The "Program", here, is KDE. By compiling it, you create a "work based on the Program" - namely, the combination of KDE and Qt. And this is more than a mere aggregation, because if you remove Qt, KDE stops working.
In this sense, Qt becomes "a part" of KDE when it's compiled, in that KDE won't work without it.
I have been much nicer and far politer here than most (not all) Debian developers have ever been to me.
Fair enough. Not that I've *ever* been snide or sarcastic before. :-)
Re:For someone who doesn't know... (Score:2)
From Debian.org
The Problem
Troll Tech's Qt library is distributed under a licence [5] that includes this condition: You may copy this version of the Qt Free Edition provided that the entire archive is distributed unchanged and as a whole, including this notice. The KDE code is licensed under the GNU GPL v2 [6] Currently, KDE must be linked against Qt in order to produce usable binaries.
Clause 2.b. of the GPL reads:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The corollary of this is that if you link the GPLed KDE code against Troll Tech's Qt library, and distribute it, you must distribute it under the GPL.
However, the GPL insists that you grant the right to modify the complete source of a program distributed under its terms, which is clearly in conflict with Qt's licence conditions.
Clause 7 of the GPL reads: ... for any other reason ... conditions are imposed on you ... that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
7. If
So, we have been denied the right to ``distribute the Program at all''.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Re:The Compatibility Holy War (Score:2)
Having spent some time willingly and unwillingly (debian-legal posters frequently cross post to other lists) in several debian mailing lists, there is a small but very vocal minority that seem to have an irrational dislike for KDE. Right now, today, this very instant, there is no reason that the LGPL KDE *libraries* cannot be included in Debian. And once there, there is no reason not to include those KDE applications that fall under non-GPL licenses (like the most excellent Cervisia). But they have not done so even though this move has been brought up time and time again.
One particular developer said a while ago that the only thing stopping him for including KDE was the presence of KFloppy, which linked pre-KDE code to Qt. This is a valid point, and one of the few *real* legal problems with KDE/Qt licensing. However, removing KFloppy from KDE is trivial. So just do it!
If the plurality of Debian really wanted to include KDE, they could do so in some form. They could include just the base libraries and the non-GPL applications. They can include just the KDE source code (which sidesteps the entire linkage objection). But instead of doing this, they have spent the last two years endlessly arguing of minutia. The only reason I can fathom for them not included some form of KDE is because they just don't want to.
Re:Cheers to Debian, but.... (Score:2)
I don't understand you point at all. If you are arguing that the LGPL is a better license than the QPL because it allows linkage to proprietary applications, I would have to agree with you. But if you are arguing that because you can't write a closed source app with Qt then Qt can't be free, I must strongly disagree and direct your attention to the Free Software definition.
Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
When KDE was started, and the decision to use Qt was made, surely the KDE team were aware of the QTL? They must have been aware of it's interaction with the GPL, and yet they still chose to use Qt. So, if the QTL is so evil that Debian refuse to use KDE, why did the KDE team still use it?
Because the QTL is so bad (Aparently), how much work would it be to move the whole of KDE over to something like GTK+? I've never coded for either Qt or GTK, but i'm assuming they are similiar enough that it wouldn't require a whole rewrite of KDE to do it? How about writing a Qt wrapper for GTK+?
That's all, anymore and i'll bore everyone else to sleep
Why is this such a big deal? Seriously? (Score:2)
Let's think rationally for a moment. If you wanted to allow easy access to a suite of applications on Debian, but didn't want to go through the hassles of having it offically packaged, what would you do? The answer: Set up an apt-accessible source for the packages. It's easy to do, and it would reduce the task of installing KDE on a system to less than 3 commands.
It's that simple! I know apt-accessible KDE
Re:Nonfree no good (Score:2)
FWIW, Debian has been asking for the same thing for quite a while now. SPI doesn't have $3k to give to KDE for it, though.
Re:Artistic license? (Score:2)
I could be wrong, though; I confess to not having kept up with it very well.
The Compatibility Holy War (Score:4)
Let's actually look at the GPL and see what it says, instead of letting Debian tell us what it means. First off, section 0 of the GPL clearly states that it operates under copyright law. This is important, and I'll return to it.
Section 2b is sometimes cited as a reason against Qt compatibility. It requires that derivations of KDE be licensed under the GPL. But Qt is not derived from KDE. So there is no requirement to license Qt under the GPL. This one is a no-brainer, and even the most virulant of Debian developers have long since abandoned this approach. The GPL even has a clarification on this point at the end of section 2: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program
Section 3 is where most of the arguments come from. It includes the statement: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains..." For some strange reason, a lot of people assume that Qt is a module of KDE. But remember section 0. The GPL is governed by copyright law, and not by the common idioms of hackers and developers. In a programmatic sense, Qt might be considered a module of KDE. But under copyright law it is not. It is not even considered a derivative work.
But just in case people still viewed certain libraries as modules or the Program as their derivatives, the GPL goes on to make an exception: "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." Qt, which is normally distributed with all distributions of Linux and GNU/Linux (Debian distributes Qt2), falls under this exception.
The phrase "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" trips up a lot of people. Whether or not Qt is actually accompanies KDE, or is merely aggregated with it in the same Debian directory is beside the point. The requirement is only that "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2". First, the source code to Qt is available to users of KDE. Second, sections 1 and 2 include exceptions for stuff that is not derivative of the Program (KDE). All that needs doing is ensuring that the source code to Qt is available. It is.
If it is legal to distribute a GPLd program based on proprietary Motif, then it should be just as legal to distribute KDE based on Free Software Qt.
Section 6 is the "compatibility" clause. It says in part " Each time you redistribute the Program... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." But Qt is not the Program. KDE is! Copyright law does not allow anyone to impose restrictions on third parties. Any interpretation of this clause to mean that the GPL imposes restrictions on Qt is contrary to law.
Hopefully I have cleared up some confusion. In any case, don't take my word for it. Read the GPL for yourself, from top to bottom. If all else fails, rely on your common sense. The KDE Core Team has already given Debian permission to legally distribute KDE. That fact that they are still arguing over its legality seems to indicate that they simply don't want KDE, and would find yet another excuse not to distribute it even if Qt were to be made LGPL.
KDE & GNOME (Score:2)
The fact that the free QT licence met all of RedHat's objections seems to have allowed KDE to almost become the defacto Linux desktop, and perhaps qualifying for Debian release is the last hurdle to overcome.
Re:Cheers to Debian, but.... (Score:2)
Qt version 2.0 and above are 100% verifiably Free Software! Don't take my word for it, take the word of Richard Stallman. And if you don't trust his word, then actually look at the definition of 'Free Software'. The QPL license grants its users the freedom to use the software, the freedom to redistribute the software, the freedom to modify the software, and the freedom to distribute modifications of the software. It meets every point in the definition.
This continuing instance that Qt2+ is not free is bigotry, pure and simple.
Re:inclusion (Score:2)
Quote:
"Even though KDE2 and QT2 are free software according to all standards (incl. DFSG)..."
Adam
$3000? who cares. (Score:3)
If I were a maintainer, and saw someone offer $3000 for me to sell my beliefs, I think I might take this personally.
Anyway, heres what needs to happen. Qt very simply needs to be released under the LGPL or a BSD license. This isn't news to anyone, so lets figure out how this can happen. Heres my thoughts:
Thanks my $.02.
Re:Have you seen this penguin? (Score:2)
That certainly appears to be the case, doesn't it? Never heard of anyone being bitchslapped for moderating down posts by any other one poster, eh?
Re:Have you seen this penguin? (Score:2)
Nonsense. (Score:2)
Please name any European country in which the GPL has been ruled invalid. Hint: the answer is none; no country has so ruled.
Re:Opportunity for another Mandrake ... (Score:2)
It might be a good business opportunity, but I fear that yaLd (yet another Linux distribution) won't have that much of a chance on the already fragmentated market. Really, what use would it be to the user? We already have more distriutions based on RedHat than you can count with the fingers of one hand (or can you?), we have SuSE, Slackware etc.
I found that it is often easier for me just to download stuff and install it on a bare-bone system, than to try to understand the innards of a pre-packaged distribution. BTW if/when someone would build a Debian-based distribution w/ KDE included, do you think they would integrate it the RedHat way, the SuSE way or somehow else?
I'm not so concerned about GPL and QPL - I just want a distro that is easy to administer, doesn't spread important files belonging to one package all over the directory tree and doesn't have bootup scripts it takes a week to understand what they really do.
Re:Inclusion in non-free (Score:2)
Re:Incompatibility? (Score:2)
As an aside, if the KDE app were de-KDEized (say, by rewriting it for GNOME), the GPL-with-exception code would be license-compatible with other straight-GPL code. The sole problem is linking with Qt.
Another Alternative (Score:3)
This leads to the following suggestion. Have an extra disk, marked "partial", to go along with the main, source, extra, non-free and non-us.
The "partial" disk can contain GPLed code that has been dynamically linked to non-GPLed libraries, but WITHOUT including those non-GPLed libraries, on the basis that GPLed versions may be written, or the Qt licence may be replaced with the GPL.
IMHO, this solves the conundrum of KDE - free code barred from a free distribution on the basis of a decision made by an outside agency. Contain the problem, rather than quarantine the population.
IMHO, this makes more sense than licence tweaking, as that just adds to the proliferation. If the Governments of the world can agree to Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaties and Non-Proliferation Treaties, then Open Source coders can establish Licence Reduction Treaties and Licence Non-Proliferation Treaties.
Re:For someone who doesn't know... (Score:4)
There are several potential solutions:
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
Because the QTL is so bad (Aparently), how much work would it be to move the whole of KDE over to something like GTK+? I've never coded for either Qt or GTK, but i'm assuming they are similiar enough that it wouldn't require a whole rewrite of KDE to do it? How about writing a Qt wrapper for GTK+?
It would be impossible (or very, very difficult) to do this without a complete rewrite. The whole design of Qt and GTK+ are completely different - GTK+ is C-based, and Qt is C++ based. Programming the two is completely different, as well as designing programs which use them. There are C++ wrappers for GTK+ (with Gtk-- being the most prominent, and supposedly the best) but even so, it's a completely different world.
KDE/Qt is nicer to program for, but Gnome/GTK+ looks better. That's why I'm rooting for Gnome
--
What's going on here? (Score:2)
The post seems to imply that someone is trying to bribe Debian to include KDE with their next release. If that's the case I'm against it; I may or may not follow Debian's ideals but I do think it would be a shame for those ideals to be compromised.
However, the letter seems to say that this is just some guy offering $3000 to KDE if they'll add an exception to the GPL in their license, thus rendering it compatible with KDE. Frankly, I don't know why the hell the KDE team didn't just do this in the beginning. If they had only done that then The Licensing Wars would never have started, Troll would get to keep their precious pseudo-Free license unaltered, KDE would stay GPL, there would be no licensing conflict, Debian could have included KDE, and everyone would have been happy. Of course, then there would have been no entertaining flamewars on Slashdot, but I think that's a small price to pay.
Is this just a case of submission (or posting) error? The post makes this seem like some potential scandal, but the letter by itself is hardly that at all.
Clearly defined challenge: (Score:3)
Seems pretty straightforward to me. You have to get all the developers to add this change to their licenses. I don't know how many this means but on sych a large project it could be a monumental task.
Re:inclusion (Score:2)
Personally I wish more packages would by default install into separate directories in
Re:Have you seen this penguin? (Score:2)
what are you referring to when you talk of the lack of justification
for using the +1 bonus?
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
Ahhh, ok. Would Qt count as a system library? It should, if the Win32 UI libs do, because they play the same role.
--
Re:sources.list line repositories? (Score:2)
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
This is a good object lesson in how attention to detail is important. The problem here is that the KDE authors' stated wishes are logically incoherent. Had they picked something like the X or Artistic licenses back then, or added the exception clause, many of the problems we've had since would've been avoided.
Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
And if this isn't the case, what's the fuss about? KDE is GPL'ed, Qt isn't, but that's ok, right? The only problem would be if it were the other way around. Or am i just braindead at this ungodly hour of the morning?
--
Re:Yay, more QTL madness (Score:2)
Re:Cheers to Debian, but.... (Score:2)
I'll second that. To be honest I don't even use Debian right now, but I think it's important that there is a distribution that remains "pure." There are plenty of commercial distros that include KDE so it's not as if people are being denied a choice. And as you mentioned, even if Debian isn't distributing KDE with their product, it's not as if the end user can't get it.
Personally I like to avoid packages that require QT to compile anyway. I think Licq is the only one I still use.
numb
Why does he want the license change? (Score:2)
How many of us are willing to pay off the Trolls? Gunther is willing to give $3000 (or is it $3) for a bad work-around (bad because we now have another extra legal loop to go around.... e.g. I want to port a kde app to gnome, must I license it with the QT qualifier? Must I send my source to the Trolls?) and I would be willing to give a few bucks (i.e. buy a boxed distro). So who will step up to the mark?
- IBM, SGI or
.... One of the bigger companies who can afford it as a publicity issue. - Microsoft. They could do it so that they can use qt work etc on windows but let's face it this is unlikely
- Gnu, FSF. A fund-raising campaign to put this to bed for once. Could they have the readies in time for QT2?
- Us. Anyone have any ideas for a real way to collect money online so that it can be bought buy the people for the people?
At the end of the day who cares if MS get it for free aswell, so long as we can all ensure that we have a free [gnu.org] computer software system, and who couldn't care less as long as they can compile and run what they want?Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
You can't link GPL'd programs to closed source libraries, except when the closed library is an integral part of the operating system, as explained in the following clause of the GPL [gnu.org]:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.
Re:Another Alternative (Score:2)
The problem with KDE is that the licenses are logically inconsistent. Debian's position is that there is no coherent license for the distribution of KDE at all. This is as opposed to the LyX issue above; the LyX people added a suitable exemption from the GPL.
Once the exemption is included, then KDE could ship in main, since KDE itself is DFSG-compliant and Qt is also DFSG-compliant. This would make KDE just as much a part of Debian as GNOME.
Re:What's going on here? (Score:2)
tiresome task of contacting all of the contributors and asking them to
change the license provided with their source code. There is no bribe
here.
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
So, to use your example, it is perfectly legal to write GPLed Windows programs, or to port a GPLed program to Windows (GNU Emacs has been ported; do you think RMS would stand for this if it weren't?). But, it wouldn't be legal for Microsoft to distribute those programs as a part of Windows.
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
However, it doesn't help in this case, since we still can't distribute KDE in main along with Qt.
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
EXCEPT for the operating system exception clause. If, and only if, a library can be (very strictly, think libc, not widget lib x from Bobbys Linux Distro) considered a part of the operating system, then you may link to it without it having to be license compatible with the GPL.
That way, you can write GPL programs for Windows or commercial unixes, but you cannot abuse GPL code and just separate it from a proprietary program/library by isolating either entity with dynamic linking.
Re:inclusion (Score:2)
Ivan
Re:Isn't QT a system library? (Score:2)
So, it may be legal to make "KDE for Debian", but Debian can't distribute it.