[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[linux-team] mieux comprendre GNU GPL par un cas pratique



mieux comprendre GNU GPL par un cas pratique :

Conclusion de ce qui suit :

Si j'ai bien tout compris :
KDE, ne sera plus distribue avec RedHat et Debian et probablement
plus avec beaucoup d'autre distribution de Linux !


Un autre eclairage du probleme :

http://www.redhat.com/redhat/qtlicense.html


Le probleme

Subject : Debian's stance on KDE copyright and licensing issues

Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader wrote:

> There has been much controversy about the various licence conditions
> under which KDE[1] and Troll Tech[2]'s Qt library are distributed, and
> about the relationship between these two licences.
>
> This document attempts to focus on the aspects of this situation that
> have resulted in Debian[3]'s decision to cease distribution of KDE
> binaries via Debian Internet sites and official CD-ROMs.
>
> It should be noted that this action has not been taken out of any
> antagonism towards non-free[4] software, or KDE, but purely on the
> basis that the various licences combine in a way that fails to grant
> Debian (or anyone else) the right to distribute these binaries.
>
> The Problem:
> ------------
>
> 1) 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.
>
> 2) The KDE code is licensed under the GNU GPL v2[6]
>
> 3) 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:
>
>    7. If ... 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.
>
> So, we have been denied the right to ``distribute the Program at all''.
>
> Potential Solutions:
> --------------------
>
> 1) Licence change
>
>  Since it is the choice of licence that has given us this problem, one
>  possible solution is to change the licence.  It is perfectly possible
>  to distribute a program under a licence that reads something like:
>
>   ``This program is distributed under the GNU GPL v2, with the
>     additional permission that it may be linked against Troll Tech's Qt
>     library, and distributed, without the GPL applying to Qt''
>
>  This would allow Debian (and everyone else) to distribute KDE
>  binaries, and it appears to reflect the KDE developers' actual
>  intentions.
>
>  Who can make this happen ?
>
>  The only person that can change the licence conditions under which a
>  program is distributed, is the copyright holder (i.e. the author in
>  most cases).
>
>  In the case of programs that were written entirely by KDE core
>  developers, there should really be little difficulty in agreeing to
>  choose an alternative licence under which the binaries can be
>  distributed.
>
>  Difficulties are likely to arise when either, significant portions of
>  the code have been contributed by the wider community, or when third
>  party GPLed code has been ported to Qt.  This is not surprising,
>  since the GPL was explicitly designed to prevent GPLed code being
>  incorporated into non-free software.
>
> 2) KDE losing its dependence upon non-free software.
>
>  There are a few scenarios that could lead to this, the most promising
>  one being the Harmony[7] project (an attempt to implement a GPLed
>  replacement for Qt).
>
>  If any of these come to pass, then KDE binaries built without any
>  dependence upon non-free code should be possible, and would then be
>  included as part of the main Debian GNU/Linux distribution.
>
>  Of course, for this to happen the KDE developers will have to
>  restrain themselves from using any other non-free libraries.  Also,
>  limiting themselves to using only those features (soon to be)
>  available in Harmony would obviously help.
>
> So what IS allowed ?
> --------------------
>
> For code that is 100% authored by KDE core developers, they can flout
> their own licence and distribute KDE binaries as they feel fit[8].
>
> For operating systems that supply Qt as a default component[9] there
> is an exception in the GPL, which would allow them to distribute KDE
> binaries, linked against Qt.
>
> Of course, the source can be freely published, since there is no
> problem until it is combined with the Qt libraries, and their
> conflicting licence.
>
> So what is NOT allowed ?
> ---------------------
>
> The taking of GPL code (by people other than the copyright holder),
> linking it against code with an incompatible licence, and distributing
> the resulting binary is explicitly prohibited[10].
>
> In practice, most GPLed programs include patches submitted by many
> authors.  This means that it becomes impossible for any single person
> to claim that they are the sole copyright holder, and can thus issue
> the code under alternative licence conditions.
>
> It should be noted that some of the KDE binaries have significant
> amounts of third party GPLed code for which consent to link against Qt
> and distribute has not been sought or granted.
>
> Conclusion:
> -----------
>
> 1) People should choose licences that reflect their wishes.
>
>    The KDE developers do not wish to impose all of the restrictions
>    embodied in the GPL, so they should not use the GPL.
>
> 2) People should respect the licence conditions under which software
>    is distributed.
>
>    For Debian, this means that as it stands, we will respect KDE's choice
>    of the GPL, by not distributing their binaries (as requested in the GPL)
>
>    For KDE, this means that they should respect others' use of the GPL
>    and obtain permission to link that code with non-free libraries before
>    distributing the resulting binaries.
>
> References:
> -----------
> [1]  http://www.kde.org/
> [2]  http://www.troll.no/
> [3]  http://www.debian.org/
> [4]  http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
> [5]  http://www.troll.no/free-license.html
> [6]  http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> [7]  http://harmony.ruhr.de/
>
> [8]  Stephan Kulow, who is both a Debian maintainer and a KDE developer,
>      has declared his intention to continue producing Debian packages
>      which will be distributed from the KDE site.
>      ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/latest/distribution/deb/
>
> [9]  It is not clear that there are any such OSs, but this is a bone of
>      contention.  In any event Debian GNU/Linux does not include it, since
>      it does not comply with the the Debian Free Software Guidelines [4].
>
> [10] A possible exception is the distribution of KDE binaries for an
>      operating system that includes Qt as a default component.  Debian
>      GNU/Linux is certainly not such a system, and many people (RMS
>      included) would say that Linux as a whole is not.
>
> Note: RedHat have come to a related conclusion, that may also be of interest:
>       http://www.redhat.com/redhat/qtlicense.html
>
> "Qt" is a trademark of Troll Tech AS.
>
> You may find answers to questions arising from this document here:
>   http://www.uk.debian.org/~phil/KDE-FAQ.html
>
> Copyright (C)1998 Philip Hands.  You may redistribute this statement
> according to the terms of the GNU General Public Licence, version 2
> (Note that of course you must prominently mark any modified versions).
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-announce-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



--

        Spineux Alain

Romani ite domus.
======================================================================
  Spineux Alain                         E-MAIL : spineux@prm.ucl.ac.be
  INSTITUT STEVIN
  Catholic University of Louvain        FAX    : 32-10-472501
  PLACE DU LEVANT 2                     PHONE  : 32-10-472516
  B-1348 LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE (BELGIUM)
=======================================================================


---------
This message was send by Majordomo 1.94.3. Please repport problems to
manu@rtfm.be. If you want to be deleted from the list, send a mail to
majordomo@rtfm.be with "unsubscribe linux-team" in the body.