"rescuing" code from the GPL

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa RemoveThis @gmail.com> writes:

> Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>>> 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
>>> 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
>> Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the
>> source code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they
>> could not legally distribute a compiled binary that included
>> copyrightable parts of GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries
>> under the GPL.
>
> I don't agree with some points in this.
>
> The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The
> very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a
> derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when
> distributed, whether in source form or compiled form.
>
> Please point out the flaw in this reasoning. Thank you.

Suppose I write from scratch a new library, Tq, that is source and
binary compatible with Qt (huge task, but that's beside the point).
Every app written to use Qt can now instead use Tq without even a
recompile. Are these apps now suddenly derivatives of Tq as well as
Qt? I think not.

--
Måns Rullgård
mans RemoveThis @mansr.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
> 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.

1)

Please explain how this is legal.

Qt is copyrighted by Trolltech. A license provides me rights that
normally only the copyright owners have. Any permission the license does
not provide me I do not have. I have permission to create a derivative
work ("my work") only so long as I distribute it under the GPL.

Trolltech has not given me permission to distribute my work under the
BSDL. The fact that I have also distributed my work under the GPL is
immaterial. I cannot do something I don't have permission for. So how
can I license my work under the BSDL at all?

2)

My intention in putting the work under the BSDL is, evidently:

"I am currently incapable of making this work Qt-independent. But if any
programmer should come that makes this work Qt-independent, then the
work may from then onwards be distributed under the BSDL."

But the question above stands. I can't license my work *as a whole*
under the BSDL. GPL-v2 section 2 para 4 says:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. 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,"

So should I say:

"This work as a whole is licensed under the GPL. This work or any part
of it which is or can be modified to be Qt-independent may be
distributed in such a Qt-independent form under the BSDL also".

Is such verbosity really necessary, or is it understood? If it would be
illegal to say:

"This work as a whole is licensed under both the GPL and the BSDL"

then I may have no choice but to resort to such verbosity.

Further, in its Qt-dependent state, if I distribute a compiled form of
my work, then would it still be dual-licensed in that form? Or would it
be *only* under the GPL? If yes, then does dual-licensing apply only to
source forms?

Thanks for your patience,

Shriramana Sharma.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

This is not legal advice. If you need good legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Shriramana Sharma wrote:
>> 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
>> 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
>
> 1)
>
> Please explain how this is legal.
>
> Qt is copyrighted by Trolltech. A license provides me rights that
> normally only the copyright owners have. Any permission the license does
> not provide me I do not have. I have permission to create a derivative
> work ("my work") only so long as I distribute it under the GPL.
>
> Trolltech has not given me permission to distribute my work under the
> BSDL. The fact that I have also distributed my work under the GPL is
> immaterial. I cannot do something I don't have permission for. So how
> can I license my work under the BSDL at all?

The problem is that the original "it" above is ambiguous. Is "it" the
compiled binary, or the source code?

Source code generally stands on its own. Unless you have cut and pasted
sections of Qt code into your source files, or can otherwise be
identified as theirs, your source code is entirely yours, and can be
licensed by you as you see fit. TrollTech has no say in how your source
code may or may not be licensed.

TrollTech has a claim against you only when you compile your source code
into a binary, which by necessity pulls TrollTech's creative work into
the result. When distributing that binary, people must respect both
your license and TrollTech's. That turns out to be easy, since the
BSDL's restrictions are a subset of the GPL's. But the fact that it is
easy to combine these works does not negate their initial separation or
your rights to the parts that are yours.

> So should I say:
>
> "This work as a whole is licensed under the GPL. This work or any part
> of it which is or can be modified to be Qt-independent may be
> distributed in such a Qt-independent form under the BSDL also".
>
> Is such verbosity really necessary, or is it understood? If it would be
> illegal to say:
>
> "This work as a whole is licensed under both the GPL and the BSDL"
>
> then I may have no choice but to resort to such verbosity.

For the source code, you can simply apply a normal BSDL copyright notice
to each file.

I prefer to put a separate file in my source, explaining the license
situation. If you do that, you can explain there how your code is
dependent on other things, and that your license does not grant implicit
rights to these other things. If you don't provide a separate license
explanation, then you should have a license statement in every source
file you distribute, as mentioned above.

The license notice for the binary should contain references to both your
license and the GPL, as well as licenses for other libraries you may use.

> Further, in its Qt-dependent state, if I distribute a compiled form of
> my work, then would it still be dual-licensed in that form? Or would it
> be *only* under the GPL? If yes, then does dual-licensing apply only to
> source forms?

Since it's difficult to isolate your specific code from the binary, the
license for the binary is effectively the GPL. But you should not feel
compelled to drop your license statement from the binary just for that
reason.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org