[Freeciv-Dev] Re: KCiv?

[Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Gaute B Strokkenes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > But does porting software to use a widget library create a derived
> > work?  I don't think so.
> 
> Sure it is.  If it was not the case, then e.g. Troll Tech would have
> no legal basis for demanding that people who wish to make Qt programs
> conform to the Qt license.  Think about it.

It depends on whether you are talking about binaries or the source.  If you
compile something statically then your binary includes the library's code and
you need the permission of the copyright holder of that code to distribute it. 
If it's dynamically linked then the issue isn't as clear, I've seen people
argue it both ways.

But if you distribute the source of your application, there is no way someone
can claim that it's a derivative work of a library it can be compiled with. 
That's just an absurd notion.  Think about what derivative means.  There is no
way a program that includes no code written by trolltech, and could be written
without having even seen anything copyrighted by trolltech, could be
considered to be derived from their work.  Think about it this way, what if
you held up the source code to an application that uses QT to the people at
trolltech, and asked them, "What in here is yours?"  What could they say?  The
names of functions?  You can't copyright a function name or even an interface,
that was decided in the courts long ago.  There would be nothing there that
trolltech wrote, nothing derived from anything trolltech wrote, and no reason
from them be copyright holders of it.

The problem with QT had nothing to do with ported works having trolltech added
as a copyright holder.  It was because of the paragraph that Greg posted, all
components need to be open source, except those which are part of the
operating system. 

> > You might as well say that the gtk/windows port of freeciv is a
> > derived work of microsoft's libraries, because it links with them.
> 
> It is.

So, why don't you add "Copyright (C)2001 Microsoft Corporation" at the
beginning of all the source files?  Since you think freeciv is a derivative
work of microsoft's material, they own the copyright too.

> > Can people distribute the source to xmcd with the disclaimer that
> > you aren't allowed to use it on Linux or any other operating system
> > that doesn't come standard with motif libraries?
> 
> I don't think such a notice would (strictly speaking) be required, but
> it's certainly helpful for the unwary.

I also think RMS would have a big problem with that, since adding a "not for
use with Linux" disclaimer restricts your freedom to use the software, and
unrestricted freedom is supposedly the purpose of the GPL. 

> >> > So that and worrying about microprose suing them made whoever did
> >> > the qt port give up.  Maybe now that QT is open source ok and RMS
> >> > has "forgiven"
> >> 
> >> You may wish to have a look at the following part of the GPL "Any
> >> attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the
> >> Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
> >> this license."  That is why this is necessary.
> > 
> > I know that.  Why do you think I mentioned it?
> 
> To diss RMS?  You were not using neutral language, but then you seldom
> do.

I think you are trying to find things to complain about when they aren't
there, just so you can diss me.  If anything, I was negative toward the KDE
people who ported software to KDE against the wishes of its creators.