KDE to RMS: That's Absurd. 366
A retierd War Corespondant writes "KDE has issued a formal response to RMS' latest editorial on KDE and GPLed QT. Favorite Quote: "This entire thing is just too absurd and we refuse to play this game." They also point to the listing of licenses and Authors within KDE." Update: 09/06 11:38 AM by H :Some of the authors have written as well.
Re:This is Crazy (Score:3)
So, why is RMS forgiving KDE when not one semicolen of FSF code is included in KDE? And why does he single out KDE when there have been other violators of the GPL throughout the years? Did Corel get forgiveness from RMS, Linus Torvalds, and yes, the KDE developers? Did GNOME get forgiveness from KDE when they inadvertantly misappropriated their code?
The problem is not so much that RMS grants some sort of legal forgiveness, but rather that he singles out KDE and KDE alone as needing to be forgiven.
Re:What do you want them to do? (Score:2)
So, that being said, the question to ask is whether Qt is a work based on KDE, or the other way around...
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
When Compromise is and is not good (Score:3)
RMS is a really smart and dedicated guy, but all I've ever seen from him are missives about what everyone should be doing. Even if he's right, he's going to piss people off to the extent where he will make people want to disagree with him on principle, no matter how correct he is.
His latest KDE article thing is a perfect example. TrollTech finally releases QT as GPLd software, and what does he do? Point out that all the old stuff is probably incompatible, and mention that because of that they've lost their right to redistribute their software unless they beg everyone for forgiveness.
That is an example of an unwillingness to compromise endangering his revolution... and if it should ever fail, he'd only have himself to blame for it.
He should write code less and study history more.
Re: Pretty tame, for RMS... (Score:2)
I agree. When I read the editorial yesterday, I thought -- for RMS -- it was unusually civil and even forthcoming.
People here are actually pissed off because he said "go gnomes" at the end. KeeeeRIST on a minibike!! Can't the guy cheer for his own team?
He said there were still some stray bits of code that needed to be explicitly "forgiven" just to make sure all of KDE is 100% spic-and-span GPL... Nitpicky? Sure. (But this is RMS, after all... is anyone surprised?)
The KDE folks dispute the amount of "questionable" code, and vow to replace it with their own. Good for them.
Either way, it looks as though the path is now clear for everyone to quit bitching about this IDIOTIC war between Gnome and KDE, and get back to the business of WorldDomination[tm]...
Cheers,
--jrd
Re:journalistic integrity on /. ? is that a joke? (Score:2)
here's why KDE's response doesn't stand up (Score:2)
--
GPL violations (Score:2)
Why does this matter? Because section 4 of the GPL says that if you copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the work other than as provided in the license, your rights to the work are terminated. It does not say that your rights are reinstated later if you fix the problem. In other words, the KDE group's rights to the GPL'd code in question were terminated in the past, and need to be reinstated if they want to continue using any of that code.
My reading of Stallman's statement is not that he was demanding that anyone beg and grovel, but that we was generously agreeing to reinstate any such rights on software owned by the FSF.
I think people on both sides of this issue are far too thin-skinned and too quick to attack.
Re:Does RMS do it for publicity? (Score:2)
And, while it is true that the X11 license is "more free" than the GPL in that it has fewer restrictions, the issue is whether those freedoms are good. There are, after all, bad freedoms (such as the freedom to steal). Some might say that the freedom to steal is bad because it is incompatible with the freedom to own. RMS says the freedom to create proprietary software is bad because it is incompatible with the freedom (of the user) to control his software. Whether or not this is the case I would rather not address here -- but certainly the GPL cannot be dismissed through such an overly-simplistic application of the concept of freedom as "less restrictions == better". It is not incompatible with freedom to restrict a person's ability to infringe upon others' freedom (whether or not it is, in the case of the GPL, a good thing).
Such as when? Why don't you back your accusations with evidence? I've never seen any implication of the sort, and while I have not read everything he has said, I have read several essays by and interviews of RMS. DUH! "Lesser" does not mean less free. You are, of course, correct if you assert that RMS believes that the GPL is preferable to other free software licenses most of the time (however, you can see from his essay on the LGPL[link] [fsf.org] that there are times when he finds the LGPL preferable) -- but that is not what you previously asserted. What you asserted was that RMS believes that non-GPL free software licenses are not free software licenses. This is patently false and given your access to the facts, libelous. If I didn't see you post so much I'd conclude from this that you are a troll. Any license that allows relicensing without new restrictions -- e.g. the X11 license -- allows relicensing under the GPL. There doesn't need to be a specific GPL surrender, though obviously a surrender to relicensing must exist, as well as the lack of extra-GPL restrictions. However, I challenge you to find imposed by the X11 license "any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" (to quote the GPL).Oh right. I forgot about what we were originally discussing -- whether RMS considered Xfree to be non-free. What were you saying about that?
Good ol' RMS... (Score:4)
And then, at some point, the intervening centuries come crashing down, with a resounding, "What the heck!?!" Did this guy really... no, I already know, he did really believe all this. He absolutely lived in this elaborate, invisible realm, which requires the most careful tread once you've made it your own.
RMS manages to evoke the same sort of response from his contemporaries; and small wonder, since his own moral realm seems absolutely personal, mostly crafted by his own hand. Suddenly, just when you least expect it, RMS feels it absolutely necessary to... forgive you.
Odd duck, but I like him. You can certainly tell why he was such a coder anyway... sitting down to the keyboard, he's just slipping from one abstraction to another.
They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:3)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Loosing sight of the spirit of free software (Score:2)
Founder's Camp [founderscamp.com]
Helpdesk (comic stripd) has an episode on this (Score:2)
http://www.ubersoft.net/ [ubersoft.net] and it's name is 'Can't Win for losing' in case you come in later and the scripts have moved the URL.
Just FYI. Greetings
Does anyone remember the Emacs/Xemacs saga? (Score:2)
It is often said that the payback from Open/Free software development is in terms of kudos to the author and boost to the ego.
In this case it would seem that ego is at the forefront of the discussion as much as quibbles about licences or software quality.
rms vs. Richard M. Stallman (Score:2)
That the fake-rms was using rms@stallman.org was my first tip-off, since I thought RMS had a gnu.org email address.
Naughty dastardly trolls.
Thank you, KDE! (Score:3)
The KDE people have every right to be pissed, now. But their answer is one of the most mature reactions I have seen from an Open Source project. They even went through the pain to compile a detailed list of licenses and authors of their whole project for reference.
Thank you, KDE, for your grown up and professional respose to criticsm from a person who contributed an important meme to our community, but now behaves like a spoiled child.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
Re:just clearing out a little phlegm (Score:2)
Without the GNU C compiler, the 4.4BSD project wouldn't have survived. Even though BSD was open source, it had depended on commercial support for there to have been any implementations. But all the former BSD venders (Sun, DEC, etc) abandoned BSD. Sun had betrayed BSD and went with AT&T SVR4. And AT&T was sueing the hell out of BSD. The University of California pulled their support.
They could never have implemented 4.4BSD on anything unless they had a compiler. And a compilers code specifically for a particular operating system and hardware. That means that there needed to be a compiler that could produce code specific to 4.4BSD and for the architecture.
And that of course didn't exist, because they were inventing a new OS in the first place. Before GCC, every operating system vender had to write a specific C compiler for their platform themselves from scratch. And that's as enormous a project as the operating itself. But GCC was open source, and it had the revolutionary ability of supporting any number of architectures and operating systems. Somebody just needed to make it support the 386 instruction set. And then individual operating system projects just needed to add in support for their system calls and binary format.
GCC was the first and only open source compiler, and it took a considerable time to develop. The 386BSD project wouldn't have been attempted without gcc. gcc was already very stable and widely used when UNIX on the PC was still a dream.
Re:Does RMS do it for publicity? (Score:4)
Re:Give the man a break! (Score:2)
thanks for clarifying the legal issue.
As to the personal preference issue: he has a personal preference for Gnome... so what? having or expressing personal preferences does not make one petty, and there's no evidence whatsoever that his legal-pettiness reflects any other personal preferences. What makes Stallman so weird is that he'd sue his mother whether he liked her or not. He wouldn't let his preference for Gnome change his behavior over licensing.
WTF? Read the article! (Score:3)
Bell Labs is WHAT? BWHAHAHA (Score:3)
I laughed so hard I was afraid I was just going to lose it, right at that line. BWAHAHAHAHA.
First off, Bell Labs was one of a handful of facilities in the United States totally set up for pure research. Like XEROX Palo Alto Research Center, Bell Labs did research that went somewhere. For years, Bell Labs scientists generated an average of a patent a day. It was Bell Labs that brought high-fidelity playback into being, with its research into people preferences by using a pipe-organ swell box to go from full-frequency response to the tin-box sound popular with radios at the time. Indeed, like that sound study, much of the Bell Labs research didn't relate directly to telephones, although it was amazing how "unrelated research" did come back to help the telecommunications giant to provide better phone service.
Bell Labs didn't have a CLUE how to turn a profit through the post-divestiture 80s, and into the 90s as well. I couldn't be hired as an employee because I didn't have a PhD, but that didn't stop them from hiring me as a consultant to get some sanity into projects.
Look, the FCC had more to do with the Unix troubles than anything else. Or perhaps you haven't done your homework? Reading some of the Orders regarding Unix were, well, interesting. Here was the FCC, long before Computer I, talking about an operating system that was developed by a regulated monopoly working outside its boundery, and what was a Commission to do?
As for taking the hint, you have never seen RMS at his worst, have you? It's one reason I'm happy he doesn't come to a certain convention any more.
Taking this to an extreme (Score:2)
Re:just clearing out a little phlegm (Score:2)
Oh my. Is that what's important to an OS, the spotlight?
FreeBSD still has inferior hardware support, applications support, etc.
Yes, FreeBSD is inferior to the leader in those categories, Windows 98. Such is life.
Ah yes, speaking of Windows, I believe your quote that the previous poster responded to was:
without RMS or another hard liner who stuck to his guns and just plain simply refused to give an inch we'd not have all the wonderful choices we have today, we'd all be running Windows 95
While I'm not sure if you still want to argue this, I think we can all agree with your new claim:
The FSF has had a very significant impact on computing in general, [...]
Which is, I think, quite more reasonable.
and to dismiss it all by naming two projects which would be basically nowhere without the FSF, and a third which is used by almost nobody, is pretty, well, stupid.
Mmmkay, so FreeBSD and X11 would be nowhere without the FSF. Well, speculation being what it is, it could also be everywhere depending on which what-if scenario you consider. OK, and lcc is used by almost nobody. Now really, iCEBaLM, even if I was the only person who knew about it, it could still be a high-quality compiler, right? It's too bad you've never seen the lcc book, it's quite nifty. Check it out. And hey, be kind to your fellow Slashdotters, eh?
Re:Give the man a break! (Score:3)
In fact, in all the cases so far where someone has used GPL code in violation of the license have been solved outside the court system. Examples are the Next Objective C compiler (based on gcc) and ncftp (used readline), both of which were released under the GPL (though NcFTP seems to be Artistic License now, and no longer uses readline).
Re:This is Crazy (Score:3)
RMS: Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all...Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness.
MISUSING a program PERMANENTLY FORFEITS the RIGHT... ASK FOR FORGIVENESS!
As others are saying in these comments, other projects seem to have gotten off easy with their violations. A license change and all was well. Now, Troll Tech and KDE have bent over BACKWARD through compromise with a commercial product to finally give in and reach GPL licensing, AND ITS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Unlike other projects and entities violating the GPL, this group has PERMANENTLY FORFEITED their RIGHTS until they ask for FORGIVENESS from EACH and EVERY copyright holder whose rights they have trod upon.
I'm sorry... but this really seems to be singling out the KDE people, and I think that, in this case, whether FORGIVE is being used in a legal sense or no, there are definite moralistic/political intentions behind it. Remember, FSF is not just about Open Source. It's a moral/political movement, and thus all pronouncements from it will echo that nature.
Re:They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:2)
Can people stop debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin long and get back to coding?
Pure BS: Re:Qt is not GPL yet... (Score:2)
they couldn't come up with any code they owned which was in violation so maybe they don't own any of the code ?
Re:Does RMS do it for publicity? (Score:2)
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
And yet, it isn't. This is a cop-out, IMHO because RMS saw that if he pushed the issue, more people would realize that X11 is more free than the GPL. The GPL specifically prohibits any other restrictions. The X11 license has other restrictions, which it doesn't surrender without specific permission from the copyright holder.
There are only 3 categories GPL-compatible, but non-GPL software: public domain, strict GPL subsets, and software with a specific GPL-surrender (a clause that says "you can also just forget any other terms and distribute it under the GPL"). Anything else contains terms which are incompatible with the GPL.
RMS has never said anything along the lines of "non-GPL is not free",
Maybe not straight out, but he sure seems to imply it often enough. Stunts like demoting the LGPL to "lesser" status certainly don't argue against this perception.
--------
Re:RMS needs to grow up. (Score:2)
Don't take me wrong; I respect GNU and I use FSF programs all the time. However, they are not the only source of OSS (no pun intended) or even the biggest one. BSD, X, Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, the Apache Group, and others I am probably forgetting have given as much or more code to the community and, more importantly, have rallied people around them, without turning people off or away from OSS. And from those I mentioned by name, only Linus' code is GPL'ed. The BSD, X and Artistic licenses have been, historically, as successful (if not more so) as the GPL.
People act like RMS is the leader of OSS. He isn't; noone is and noone should be. He is just the most (by far) vocal, while being one of the least productive in terms of completed/successful projects from the people that do stand out.
PS: Now, some will argue that it was because of the GPL that Linux succeeded where FreeBSD failed, i.e. challenging MS on x86. Bull; for those that weren't around back then, let me remind you of the little AT&T lawsuit against the BSDs. If FreeBSD could have taken advantage of the commoditization of x86 hardware and widespread acceptance/importance of the Internet that coincided around 91-92, the
Re:How do you think this is playing in Redmond??? (Score:3)
likes those pissing matches. They are a sign
that noone has total control. Why do you think
big corporations like IBM are trying to
contribute to Linux? That's right, because it
will not be controlled by someone else.
The fact that people argue about licensing
shows that the community has checks and balances
and that fanatical RMS/ESR/your favorite loony
followers will all balance each other out.
Checks and balances is a powerful attraction
for a business.
Side note: debate is not same as flame war.
The RMS vs. KDE smells like a flame war in
disguise, but both sides were quite constructive
despite the tone - RMS forgave past license
violations and KDE provided a method for license
issues resolution via e-mail.
Ugh...another mess.... (Score:2)
I'll start out with the usual "I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I play one on TV"...
Having dealt with copyright issues in the past, I can say this much: while poorly worded, RMS's notion that the KDE developers must write to the original copyright holders of any code that they "reused" is valid. Not that I'm saying that what they did was morally wrong (or even legally), but reuse of copyrighted materials is a touchy subject (despite licensing). I see it akin to using a quote or photo from a book in the library and then publishing the quote without proper credit or permission. Yes, the book is "freely available" and yes, the words and pictures within are as well, but the book is still subject to the copyrights of the publisher and/or author. Say someone pointed out that they knew that you used the quote/photo from the book and that proper permission was not obtained prior to you publishing your work. Even if you obtain permission, unless explicitely stated, the permission is NOT retroactive and won't cover anything that you've already distributed (it may even require a second printing) and the copyright holder is still entitled to royalties or damages based no whatever you've already vended.
Ok, that being said, let's take a look at this issue. Who knows if the copyright holders of the original software whose code the KDE team "reused" are upset about this? Who knows if they don't even want KDE to contain even so much as one line of their code? NOBODY...at least not until someone asks. While I'm not positive that this is what RMS is trying to say, I believe that's what he's really getting at. The KDE team needs to realise that clarifying licensing issues involves more than just changing words...it also involves making sure that any past transgressions are corrected to the best of their ability. If this means rewriting the offending code or asking the original authors of said code for their "stamp of approval" on their past, present, and future use of their code, then I don't see why they don't just do it? If they're serious about wanting to play in the GPL court, then why not put forth a bit more effort towards doing this correctly and a bit less effort towards making all of their "responces" so public.
Redundant lawyering (Score:5)
For that matter, it doesn't even require legal training--note the description of how KDE has been singled out as needing forgiveness, whereas past alleged violations have not seen such treatment.
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice
Doesn't this hurt Free Software advocacy? (Score:2)
What kind of message does this send about the advantages of creating, assisting, or moving to free software?
I would think this is a terrible way of advocating your ideas when someone you've lobbied to change does change, then you ridicule them for it.
Was the point that RMS wanted them to change their software? Or was it that they didn't change when he asked the first time and now he is upset about it?
No, I won't have an argument with you! (Score:2)
--
Re:Taking this to an extreme (Score:2)
competition is good (Score:3)
Meaningless devisive and unendling flamewars are not. Why can't slashdot show a little restraint and try to rise just a little bit above the level of toilet stall door graphitti? This "article" is complete gibberish and belongs nowhere on a website that proclaims itself to be a news source. Please either spin off the "Slashdot Rumour Mill and Flamewar" site, or show that you know a little bit about journalistic integrity.
Yes, public domain rules! (Score:2)
Why waste all that effort, instead of just dumping everything into the public domain, like in the good old days?
--------
Kimp was NEVER in violation. (Score:3)
The GPL allows you unlimited rights to curupt GPLed code as long as the results stay internal.
Re:just clearing out a little phlegm (Score:2)
The FSF has had a very significant impact on computing in general, and to dismiss it all by naming two projects which would be basically nowhere without the FSF, and a third which is used by almost nobody, is pretty, well, stupid.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:RMS needs to grow up. (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
The last straw for me (Score:3)
XXX is licensed under the BSD-style license below. This license is retroactively applicable to previous versions which were released under the GNU General Public License. My goal in releasing free software is to contribute to the free flow of code between projects. I have come to realize that I should use a license with the same goal, rather than one designed to create encumbrances, uncertainty and hostility.
I originally chose the GPL because I wanted to reserve my code for other free projects. But at this point, I'd rather see it wind up it Windows than have it make life difficult for free developers who want to make use of it. I don't claim to be a significant part of the free software world, but I want my corner of it to work the way I want it to.
-----------
Re:laywer nitpicking about licenses (Score:3)
It's that sort of fuzzy logic that got KDE into trouble in the first place. Like it or not the licensing of open source software is a big issue, and it will only become more important as open source software becomes more prevalent.
Right now we are still under the radar of the IP lawyers, but it won't be long before the GPL gets its day in court. RMS is simply trying to do all he can to make sure that the GPL wins when it gets to the big dance.
The GPL is probably RMS's greatest hack. It is quite literally a hack of epic proportions, and so you can't hardly blame the guy for wanting to protect it. Just because you think that the subject is boring and nitpicky does not mean that RMS isn't spot on. IP law is like coding GUIs in assembler on a machine that changes its instruction set every 4 months. It makes little sense, and is full of seeming contradictions and picky nits. Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, the nits matter.
Re:Absurd, yes, but is it the law or RMS? (Score:3)
By requesting that KDE ask for similar statements from all the other contributors he's ensuring that this flame war is dead, with a stake through the heart : noone can come back and accuse them later of misusing some GPL'd code.
Re:They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:3)
But does it "work"? (Score:2)
In my opinion, slashdot doesn't do nearly enough to challenge the opinions of slashdot's readers; if anything, it seems to fuel this sort of "fact" by consensus approach of the majority of slashdot. If an opinion is stated and reiterated by enough people, it suddenly becomes part of slashdot party line. This skewing starts with the so-called articles. The links themselves are generally poorly written and of a certain mind frame. Then the initial commentary generally is poor, innaccurate, and biased. Once the "article" is in place, the comments start rolling in. Though anyone can submit, the majority of slashdot readers are of a certain mind frame on slashdot's popular issues. So we have a system where the same view point is uttered 25 times for everytime there is a differing one. Then we have a moderation system, which seems to be more of a popularity contest than anything else. If your view point is popular and relatively intellectual sounding, you get modded up. What's more, the system is setup such that only the comments in the first few minutes get attention, those which are written carefully and over a reasonable period of time tend to be left in the dust.
So where does this leave hard hitting alternative view points? At the bottom, where no one can see them. Between the moderation system and the sheer volume of "popular" stuff, it is rare to see honest to god discussion. If it is truth that slashdot seeks, it seems to me that you need a system where all sides of an issue have an opportunity to present their best arguments equally; slashdot is anything but. Slashdot may be entertaining and popular, but please don't confuse that as a replacement for good journalism.
It's a shame (Score:2)
It's people like him that have simultaneously raised awareness of free software projects like Linux while making the entire "movement" seem like it is simply a bunch of irrational fanatics who have infinite axes to grind.
RMS should just go GNU/away and let *today's* developers have the accolades they deserve instead of acting childish just because he's not getting all of the GNU/recognition he thinks he deserves right now.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a relative outsider looking in but it doesn't take a genius to see non-productive back-biting when it stares you right in the face.)
Re:What do you want them to do? (Score:2)
There is solid reasoning behind this; for example, imagine some company develops a new CPU. They want a compiler for it, want to keep it proprietary and not pay for the entire development. Thus they take gcc and add their code generating backend *as a library*. Instantly bypassing the GPL. Imagine things like proprietary mp3 decoders, document format converters, etc etc etc. The GPL prevents that.
So, no, it isnt ok. That means, if you intend to link against any proprietary or non-GPL compatible libraries do _not_ use the GPL, or add a clause stating that you further allow linking against the library in question so there is no problem. There must be no doubt about the fact that you are adding this extra permission because while you may have this extra permission, no other GPL code that you or anyone else may add to your code has this permission unless you ask the author of that code for it.
Re:They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:2)
Note that this is not some pettiness on behalf of RMS, but the result of a fairly keen knowledge of the legal situation. Unfortunatly, "legal" is not always "logical".
If I take a piece of GPL-ed code and incorporate it into one of my programs, the result is a derived work of the GPL-ed code. If I release my code under an incompatible license, I am in violating the GPL, and are not allowed to distribute the program. This does not necessarily change if I remove the GPL-ed piece of code - it can be argued (and many lawyers would gladly argue) that what I have is not an original work (for which I would have full copyright), but a derived work of the original program (which violated the GPL) and hence of the GPL-ed code segment.
And of course it can be argued that the same is true if I then replace this segment with another one, regardless of the license of the new piece of code.
The KDE situation is more convoluted, because KDE presumably always has been released under "GPL with implicit QT link permission". However, this combined license also is (according to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL) incompatible with the pure GPL, and hence in violation of the GPL. Ergo, KDE violates the GPL, and relinking it with a new library will not make it compliant.
Note that I do not necessarily like this situation. However, unless we shoot all the lawyers, we need to cope not only with hacker nitpicking about code, but also with laywer nitpicking about licenses.
Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:4)
Thanks
Bruce
Licences, Copyrights, Whatever (Score:5)
b) The GPL
c) IP Laws
Sheesh. I'm going back to law school.
Re:Forgivness... (Score:2)
All else aside, there is no FSF code in KDE. None. Zero. This is like my announcing that I'm offering Richard Stallman forgiveness for stealing my car.
-----------
KDE is arrogant (READ before you moderate :-P) (Score:3)
It's... It's...
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
forfeited their rights (normally granted under the GPL) to
redistribute/modify GPL code because in the past they had linked it
against non GPL code. What gets me is that RMS is objecting to
developers writing GPL code (ie. KDE) borrowing other GPL code. It
makes a mockery of the claim that the GPL respects the freedoms of its
developers and users.
As for `slapping a license' on code, that arises from one of the
following interpretations of the GPL (caveat: I'm not sure this is
RMS's interpreatation, but this interpretation has been posted on
slashdot before):
Sections 0 and 3 specify what code the GPL covers. Section 0
defines the `The Program' to be the code carrying the license, and
anything derived from it. Section 3 talks about `complete source
code' which is all source necessary to compile the output, with a
vaguely worded special exception that at least covers OS libraries.
Section 1 says that (verbatim) redistributions must contain the license.
Section 3 says that the whole source code must be made available
for redistribution if an executable is made available.
Section 6 says that the redistribution must not contain
restrictions further to the GPL.
Interpretation one: section 3 only mandates that the whole source
must be available, but does not specify how it is made available.
Therefore if part carries the GPL and another part carries the QPL,
you can satisfy the conditions of the GPL by doing two separate
redistributions. This is my favoured interpretation, and it means
that GPL code may be linked against QPL code.
Interpretation two: the same distribution is being talked about in
sections 1, 3 and 6. The GPL must be taken to apply to all of it.
Then the GPL license is being applied to code by someone other than
the copyright holder, hence my talk of `slapping on the GPL'.
Didn't you read KDE's last paragraph? (Score:2)
"That said, if you or somebody you know has code in KDE whose copyright we really are violating, please speak up and send an email to kde@kde.org so that we may fix the issue. In case of doubt, we have compiled three documents: one listing all modules in KDE and the license it follows[2], one listing all copyright holders in all code inside of the KDE CVS[3], and one with all copyright holders email addresses[4] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00062 .html
[2] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/l icensing.html
[3] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/c opyright-lines.html
[4] http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/e mail-addresses.html."
IANAL, but I am a paralegal and I do understand this issue of copyright. What Stallman wrote was *legally* correct...forgiven is a legal term and that's how he used it. And by attaching the paragraph quoted above, KDE is responding correctly under the current legal system by asking all to contact them. In short, Stallman was right to point out this legal issue and all the rest is just emotions. He is super correct on legal things involving the GPL. And in today's legal climate, he is sooooo right to be careful of copyright issues. Remember the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, folks?
Whether he could say it better is another issue, and considering everything involved, a lesser one, IMO.
Re:What do you want them to do? (Score:2)
What exactly was the GPL's problem with Qt? AFAIK, the GPL limits what can link with it, right? c.f. using readline in non-GPLed programs.
But that isn't the case here; here a GPLed progaming is using a non-GPLed program. Surely that is ok? (assuming the non-GPL licence was ok with it. and if it wasn't ok, isn't it Qt that should be bitching?)
I'm really curious. Does anyone with a clue care to share? Even a pointer to the proper FAQ?
I've always liked KDE... (Score:2)
He wrote the GPL. It is a vital component of his Life Mission. I trust that the man understands all aspects of the license. KDE may not care about stringent adherence to licensing restrictions, but if they truly want to keep their software "free", then they should.
I thought the "go Gnome" quote was a little much, but I don't see it as a big deal. I didn't think his tone was particularly obnoxious, either.
My basic point is that if RMS doesn't know how to license Free Software, then who does? Telling RMS he doesn't know his own license seems pretty absurd to me.
--Lenny
Absurd, yes, but is it the law or RMS? (Score:5)
Probably a bit of both, I can't see any logic flaws in RMS's interpretation, but he has always been much more strict in following copyright law to the letter than just about everyone else, where other people ignore problems that would never occur in practice.
Sometimes this pays off, like when he insisted that the GNU project developed its own patent free compression program (gzip), while just about everyone else was satisfied with using compress and LZW, and trusted the vague statements from Unisys that they would never enforce their patent on software only systems.
What is wrong to do is to take this as an insult to KDE. Being paranoid about copyright law is a fundamental part of RMS's nature.
Re:Give the man a break! (Score:5)
As a lawyer with the credentials you describe, I'm here to state that the previous postings, criticizing RMS remarks as hypertechnical and petty, were fair accounts. RMS response clearly sets forth more of a personal preference for Gnome than a legal argument in opposition to the use of KDE/Qt.
This was no subtle legal defense of GPL, and to the extent it was, it was more than adequately answered by the KDE author's response. It requires no subtle expertise in computer law to understand these arguments -- pettiness is as pettiness does.
GPL is not free (Score:2)
Re:RMS needs to grow up. (Score:2)
If Linux didn't come around, people would have turned their attention to Hurd and started developing it instead.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:here's why KDE's response doesn't stand up (Score:2)
Really? Can you elaborate on how exactly one loses their right to release software under the GPL? And how long does this loss of rights last? Forever? Your argument seems to imply that KDE may never be "legal" under the GPL.
I'm not trying to flame you, I'm interested.(you're a Debian developer, right?)
I have never before heard of someone's GPL licence being revoked. I didn't even know there was an authority set up to do this. I've always thought that anyone could release software under the GPL simply by playing by the rules. Now your'e saying that there is an outside body determining who has the right to release their software under the GPL? That someone can revoke a developers right to GPL their software?
Please explain.
Give the man a break! (Score:5)
Now it's been argued that his last editorial is absurd. Here's what I have to say: RMS has probably a lot more legal background than most people at KDE and on Slashdot (including me). Unless you are a lawyer specialized in Copyrights, just shut up and give him a break!
He's been trying to defend Free Software (for better or worse) for much longer that anyone else and he's trying to prevent bad things from happenning not in the short (1-2 years) term, but the long (10-15 years) term.
At last, remember (and this is not RMS-specific) that if it was only about KDE developpers (ie no one else complaining), Qt probably wouldn't even have been released with the QPL (much less the GPL) and that would have been real bad. I know that the KDE developpers just want to code and don't want to bother with licensing issues, but some things have to be done. Since the KDE people didn't bother clearing up the Qt licensing issue, people from the outside took care of that, with the results (wars) we know.
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
statute, so in accepting it, you can restrict your freedoms. The GPL
is a license, pure and simple, which means that you do not have to
accept it, and so it cannot restrict the freedoms you would have with
the program anyway. Thus it is an altogether more difficult kind of
document to interpret in terms of what it forces upon you. The idea
that you can retroactively forfeit your rights under a license looks
to me to be completely absurd.
slap the GPL license on work other than your own. It isn't clear that
anyone other than the copyright holder is legally entitled to do that.
part, unforseen by the open source community: my own understanding,
and the understanding of many others before this brouhaha emerged, was
that if the license on the linked against code was free (ie. it
permitted free redistribution and modification of source), then there
was no problem linking against the GPL. The argument that it isn't so
depends upon many counterintuitive features of the GPL. I don't
believe the argument, personally.
I think Stallman has thought hard about these issues, but I don't
think he has a lawyers mind. In particular, I think he finds it
difficult to think in terms of what the courts will do with the
license when expected to interpret it. Just my opinion, I may have
misjudged him, but I don't trust his opinion on the GPL too much.
Why he has to be anal... (Score:2)
Imagine a world where....
In this world, it pays to be paranoid. Stallman "forgiving" code linked to Qt is a legal move to ensure in the future in court he isn't cornered and asked why he never objected to past GPL license violations...
So what if he doesn't have the social graces of a well-oiled PR machine. He's a geek after all! Look past the personality and concentrate on the importance of not losing sight of the main issues...
RMS needs to grow up. (Score:3)
I've asked this before: why the leaders of other, more succesful OSS projects than anything FSF has thrown together have managed to pump out great code without alienating more than half of the community? Why isn't Linus despised by a good chunk of developers (even BSDers
Would you like Linus as your boss? Larry Wall as your supervisor? Brian Behendorf as your team leader? Now, would you like RMS as your co-worker?
Linking against proprietry libraries? (Score:2)
How is libqt any different?
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
RMS pointed out that there remains one single legitimate licensure issue, indicated that there is a clear and simple path to resolving it, and took the initiative to address it and make it a non-issue as far as is within his power.
If KDE doesn't give a rip about licensing (a common criticism), well good for them, but there are much more diplomatic ways to say so. Responding with verbiage like "absurd", and with a "solution" (see paragraph 6) which is itself a continued violation of the forfeiture clause of the GPL (once you have forfeited your rights under the GPL to a piece of software, you do not re-gain those rights by undoing whatever violation caused that forfeiture), seems to me childish at best.
Maybe RMS should have made explicit that he was talking about "legal forgiveness" and not "ethical/moral forgiveness". He does tend to be more legal/license savvy than the KDE folks, and assuming they would understand that meaning (rather than interpret it as a last-volley personal assault) may have been an unfortunate oversight on his part.
Huzzah!! (Score:2)
Re:Give the man a break! (Score:3)
Why is "forgiveness" necessary? (Score:2)
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
But a look at clause 6 provides a trivial way out:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
i.e. each time someone gives you a new copy of the code, you get a new license. Since your rights under the new license have not been terminated, you are OK. This is where I think the KDE developers got the idea of taking out and restoring the "tainted" code, and I agree it seems absurd and unnecessary (but, OTOH, legal maneuvers often look that way).
I would also add that after years of GPLed code linked to Qt in KDE I haven't heard of any concrete (rather than hypothetical) complaint from any copyright holder that the KDE team hasn't worked out. Why do we have to assume that they are "unforgiven"? I think it is far more reasonable to assume they are "forgiven" until a specific copyright holder of a particular piece of GPLed code used by KDE says otherwise.
That's not what I'm talking about (Score:2)
Forgivness... (Score:3)
A new QT release being GPLed does NOT resolve past legal ambiguities if FSF code was linked against "old" QT. RMS' "forgiveness" removes another set of legal ambiguities. He was responding to TrollTech's actions in kind. I'll grant that his way of doing it was a little abrasive but isn't the act more important than the way he said it?
Move Along Nothing To See Here (Score:5)
All they've said is that RMS claims that before KDE can switch the license on the code, all copyright holders need to explicitly approve it ("grant forgiveness"). KDE claims that most have (since they are KDE developers) except for two modules that weren't written specifically for KDE but can be rewritten if need be to make sure all of KDE is compatible.
Heck, they even list modules and email addresses of developers so they can be contacted to make sure that they actually OK the license switch and thus noone's copyright is being violated.
All in all, reasoned and mature reactions. Kudos to KDE.
(-1 Troll)
Re:Forgivness... (Score:3)
anyway, it's pretty sad that even now that Qt is under the GPL, people (read: RMS) feel the need to be divisive about licensing issues still. many companies and teams have had licensing troubles (remember Corel's beta program?) and then cleaned up their act. KDE is now 100% clean, let's forget the QPL fiasco and enjoy the increased choice and competition between KDE, GNOME, XFCE and others.
Ego (Score:2)
Re:Maybe you would like to hear it from Stallman (Score:2)
So many errors... (Score:2)
That was your first error. Your second error was to assume that there was a license conflict in the first place. Since glibc is covered by LGPL and not GPL, there is no conflict with the old BSD license.
Your third error is to assume there is a need for an apology in case of a conflict. There isn't. There is (at most) a need for a legal forgiveness, to counteract section four of the GPL. An apology will have no legal significance.
Re:RMS proprietary about GNOME (Score:2)
Re:It's very simple -except for arm-chair lawyers (Score:2)
Intellectual property law is a cornerstone of the western legal system. The developers of KDE hold the copyright on their code. They can license it to as many different parties under as many different terms as they see fit. In this case they have licensed it under the GPL. By doing so they are not transferrring their copyright to anyone and they are not forfeiting their copyright. As the copyright holders they do not license the code to themselves. They license it to others who want to use the code under that license. These users are the ones who are bound by the GPL, not the copyright holders whose right to use that code isn't derived from the GPL but from their copyright. Releasing code under the GPL does NOT place it in the public domain. Linus Torvalds holds copyright on the portions of the linux kernel which he wrote. Don't believe me? Check the source code yourself. As the copyright holder he can do anything he damned well pleases with his code, including release binary code without the source. Why? Because he is not bound by the terms of the GPL. He is not a licensee of the kernel code, but the licensor. Of course he is not the only person who holds copyright over portions of the kernel, so please don't try to misconstrue what I've written as meaning Linus can put out complete binary only kernels. He can put out binary images of the portions he holds the copyright on only, which would be pretty useless all by themselves.
This isn't mother Russia. A person's IP rights aren't tossed out the window the moment they release something under the GPL.
If I'm wrong about this, why weren't the KDE developers sued by the FSF for violating the GPL? They weren't sued because they aren't bound by the GPL, the case would have been laughed out of court. The only people they could sue would be you and I for linking to the QT libraries in violation of the GPL which WE ARE subject to. Seeing as how the FSF is not the licensor of the KDE code, that too would be laughed out of court. So in the end all Stallman could do was pout and moan about a situation he didn't like but which he had not control over.
Poor Richard...
journalistic integrity on /. ? is that a joke? (Score:5)
1) read submission, if not immediately compelled to follow the link, toss it out
2) follow link, if link is obviously not as described by submission on first glance, toss it out
3) post submission to front page, don't stop to check trivial details like facts or spelling
4) read the linked article
Journalistic integrity doesn't even come into it. It is not only amateur, but lazy. If it sounds really cool (to someone who has top-level posting privileges), it goes up. It's that simple, and, yes, that stupid.
It sorta works, too. Since it's interesting, and there's a discussion forum, all the relevant facts get posted and modded up by the readers. Really, the articles aren't what we're here for. Each article is just the topic of the hour. It's the discussion that makes
--------
Oh, PUH-LEEZ...read my message in full first... (Score:2)
First off, I have looked at the (laundry) list of licenses and at who wrote the code, so what's your basis for saying that my comment is utter bullshit? What I had to say had nothing to do with whether or not the GPL is valid, preferable, or anything else. What I was trying (and did) say was that copyright is copyright. Could it hurt anything other than pride to ask the original copyright holders (if other than FSF) if they cared?
Obviously, you have your own opinions about the GPL which prevents you from seeing the points in my message. Once again, what I said was that RMS's editorial was very poorly worded in that the term "forgiveness" should have been striken and "permission" should be substituted (or something to that effect). After all, we're talking copyright assignments here, NOT (and I repeat NOT) whether or not the GPL is pinko-commie or whatever you personally believe.
Oh, just realised that you're posting as AC, so I guess I can forget about any reasonable discussion on this subject.
Re:They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:2)
I agree.
While I've been a Linux user since 1993 and I admire the GNU project and the whole Free Software Foundation greatly, I have to admit that recently, it almost seems as if RMS's cheese has slipped off of the proverbial cracker. His writings have raved, rambled, and often teetered on the edge of complete incoherence.
This case is particularly outlandish; for a long time he has attacked the talented folks at TrollTech for their QT licensing
Does anybody know when the last time RMS had a vacation was? Maybe he needs one.
[*] ZealotGuard: This is not to insinuate that GTK+ or GNOME are not good pieces of software. I'm praising QT, not "bashing" anything else
--
Re:It's a shame (Score:3)
RMS just wanted to make sure it was done right. He is an expert, very much the expert on Open Source licenses, especially the GPL. No doubt he has studied the QPL vs GPL issues for hours on end. He knows what he's talking about, and he knows that something needs to be done. And it needs to be done now, before KDE goes off on its newfound completely-free-software high.
I don't think anyone on the outside knew that there was so little code in KDE that could actually cause a problem; I certainly would have thought more than just the two programs mentioned would have been affected.
It just doesn't make sense to ignore such small problems, trivial as they are. They can be solved with a quick email from the authors of the code. Might as well spend a week soliciting responses, and get it right this time. For sure.
And perhaps KDE is better off just releasing a "clean" version and then re-incorporating the old code back in. But it also doesn't show ANY respect to the programmers how made the code. Maybe they would actually like a say in how their work is being used.
----
When will the FSF apologise? (Score:4)
I have a copy of the source of glibc-2.0.105 sitting on my hard drive. In inet/rexec.c (amongst other files) what do I see but a file under the BSD licence including the advertising clause. Clearly I have no rights to this code since it cannot be distributed under the GPL.
Thankfully, in 2.1, the advertising clause has been removed. But nonetheless, I expect a full apology from the FSF for breaking the terms of the original BSD licence and forgiveness from the Regents of the University of California so that I can be assured that I may use glibc2 without let or hinderance.
I await my apology.
Re:journalistic integrity on /. ? is that a joke? (Score:2)
I can't tell if you are joking or not, because this is the best description of slashdot I've ever read. I love /. for its rapid lassoing of information from all over the web, but i wish (naively?) they could chose their stories a bit more responsibly. I seriously think if there were no slashdot there would be about 20% of the KDE/GNOME flamewar. Oh well.
Danger, Will Robinson! (Score:5)
Yes, RMS wrote the license. But if he remains the only authority on the interpretation of that license, then what does any other participant have? Basically, they have what RMS lets them have, and nothing more.
If Richard Stallman is not willing to let other people participate in his revolution -- as equals, not as subordinates -- then they'll go off and start their own. That's precisely what the XEmacs people did, and that's precisely what the KDE people did... and that's what Eric Raymond did. And that's what a lot of people are doing. They're going their own way because the Old Guard won't give an inch.
This is Crazy (Score:5)
Okay, this is all a little out of control here. Does anyone actually read the articles? I followed both links then went and read the comments people have posted. I would have sworn that everyone else had read a couple of different stories. The comments people have given these two articles make it seem as though RMS and the KDE teams were flaming each other relentlessly. Instead the articles are very mild, and for the most part just restating facts
What is my take on the situation? I think it is spawned by a few posters who have never heard legal jargon. The term 'Forgive' is not used in a moralistic sense, but in a specific legal sense.
Get over it, RMS gave a nice little article which actually seemed to cheer on KDE for going GPL compatible. He listed a few minor issues that needed to be touched up on and went so far as to note that he, as the copyright holder for FSF code, was taking the first step in clearing the last of the hurdles of making KDE completely GPL compatible.
SO where exactly is the problem, is it that Richard Stallman cheers for Gnome? What the heck would you expect? Enough flames okay? The holy war is over, it was a tie.
Re:They're right. It *is* absurd. (Score:2)
"Attack"? What kind of crack are you smoking?
He said that, despite he believes that, despite the fact that there could conceivably be a legal cause against people for breaking the GPL in the past, he's not going to pursue that path ever, and urges everbody to do likewise. How is "You're now guaranteed I'm not going to ever sue you for this" an attack?
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Your all missing the bloody point. (Score:3)
Re:It's very simple -except for arm-chair lawyers (Score:2)
In the end its not about licenses but ideology. Stallman is upset that his dream of Free Unix has gotten out of his control. He doesn't like the idea of anyone using owned owned software in his precious GNU system, open source or not. So when the KDE team did that with the Qt libraries and made a successful product, he threw a fit and fell in it. Now all of a sudden Qt has been released under the GPL, something that should be a wet dream come true for him. But does he say "Thats great, and kudo's to Troll Tech!" No, he continues to attack people who were never his enemies, making himself look like a horse's ass in the process.
IQ wise the man is a genius, EQ wise he's Forrest Gump.
Lee
forgiving (Score:2)
Bye,
Stefan
Re:Maybe we should throw water on them. (Score:2)
RMS's position is absurd. As the KDE folks point out, many projects which have violated the GPL in far worse ways in the past have had no such treatment by RMS. It doesn't matter whether "forgiveness" implies legal or moral issues. The fact that he asks for special action on the part of the KDE developers when no such action has been required of, for example, Be, Corel or anyone that used older versions of bison smacks of the worst kind of double standard elitism.
The KDE folks were quite restrained. I'd have said much worse things.
--
Once upon a time... (Score:4)
Once upon a time, there was an operating system named Unix. A fine operating system by the standards of several there - not merely in technical value, but in fun value. For across the nation and indeed the world, many hackers were given leave to play with this Operating System, and have great fun with it. There was a bit of foreshadowed warning in that it was owned ultimately by AT&T's Bell Labs, but this was not noticed as they were docile.
Once upon a time, there was a man named Richard M. Stallman. He was not a famous man (not to the world at large, at least), nor was he a man of any combination of unique qualities. He was another hacker, another UNIX lover, another programmer enjoying the relative freedom in early Unix.
And then AT&T Bell Labs returned, took over Unix and claimed it all for their own, destroying the freedom that grew from this system and making many hackers unhappy.
So RMS went forth and formed the Free Software Foundation and started, with several friends, the GNU Operating System project. And much progress was made on it, and it was Good.
Now...
Once upon a time, there was an operating system named Linux. Started by a Helsinki hacker with a school project to finish, it became embraced by several hackers toying with what was slowly becoming the complete GNU OS. With the combination of the GNU OS tools (free for use by all except those who would try to take them permanently), the Linux Operating System began to take the world by fire. There was a bit of foreshadowed warning in that those GNU tools, and indeed the whole of Linux, were under Richard Stallman's GNU General Public Liscence, and thus subject to his whim and the whim of the Free Software Foundation, but this was ignored as RMS was a freedom fighter, and it was well known he would never take Linux away.
Or was it?
When Bell Labs was looked at, many disadvanatages were evident. Bell Labs is corporate-owned; it survives by putting profit first, and AT&T had a reputation for doing Bad Things with the consumer.
When we look at RMS, many disadvantages are evident. RMS is only human; he has backstabbed, grown arrogant (see Emacs vs. Xemacs), and the cynical would say that he has become convinced that the only way Freedom can be defended is if he alone does it.
Library GPL to "Lesser" GPL. "Don't use the BSD Liscence". Emacs vs. XEmacs. "GNU/Linux". "The X Consortium has betrayed us". "xxx is not compatible with the GPL, so it is bad". "Boycott Amazon".
"KDE is still in violation".
Are we, possibly, at all going to take the hint?
-Jo Hunter
Re:Danger, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:What do you want them to do? (Score:2)
Re:Give the man a break! (Score:2)
And one of the results is that Japanese companies do many things that are anti-consumer because they're not afraid of getting sued. (As an aside, I'm rather amused by the fact that in Scandal, Akira Kurosawa had a Japanese lawyer talking about how Japan was at a real disadvantage compared to the USA because of their lack of lawyers.) Just in the past few weeks, there have been two separate major issues involving major Japanese companies in the automotive industry (Bridgestone/Firestone and Mitsubishi) hiding serious safety problems rather than issuing recalls. Why? Because in Japan they expect not to suffer any penalty for doing so (no real risk of a class-action lawsuit) and they hope to avoid the cost and negative publicity involved in a recall.
Getting back to RMS and the FSF, if they weren't so vigorous about licensing issues you might see proprietary software companies being as cavalier about the GPL as Japanese companies are about product saftey recalls. Would Unix have fragmented badly in the 1980s if it had been GPLed and had someone like RMS vigorously chasing violators?
Re:RMS needs to grow up. (Score:5)
Yes, Yes, Yes and... Yes.
RMS is a hard liner, there is no doubt about it. What people seem to forget, however, is that it took a hard liner like RMS to get the ball rolling. RMS was necessary in the grand scheme of things, without RMS or another hard liner who stuck to his guns and just plain simply refused to give an inch we'd not have all the wonderful choices we have today, we'd all be running Windows 95 (because there'd be no reason for MS to improve its OS, no competition), shelling out hundreds, thousands of dollars for unreliable proprietary software, and being locked into vendors.
People around here don't give RMS enough credit, and condemn him for doing the very thing that started this whole movement.
-- iCEBaLM
just clearing out a little phlegm (Score:5)
(hrm)FreeBSD(cough)XFree86(blurgh)lcc(hrrump)
(I could go on, but I think that last one was a lung)
--------