$3000 "Reward" for KDE/Debian Compatibility

Günter Bechly sent in an interesting open letter to the KDE project regarding KDE, and its current exclusion from Debian (this is of course due to the licensing issues over which wars have been waged, lives lost, and kittens strangled). The letter is attached... he offers a $3k "Bonus" or "Reward" or "Bribe" depending on how you look at it, if KDE will be included with future versions of the distribution. Its an interesting one because the license issues are fuzzy to begin with, but it also shows that there is a strong demand for the software. Then again, I wonder if just hosting the debs and a line for a sources.list might suffice ... or just inclusion in non-free? The following was written by Slashdot Reader Günter Bechly 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

Comments

Re:The Compatibility Holy War

[Jeff Licquia]

It's debian-legal, in fact, that keeps pushing us not to include KDE, so I fail to see how the issue could have been "cleared up" there. I suppose you're free to re-introduce the issue if you think this is really what's happening (though my thoughts are that it will simply ignite another flame war and accomplish nothing).

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.

Incompatibility?

[Poe]

Would this keep a programmer who adheres to the strict definitions put forth by debian from using both pure GPL and QTclause GPL code in a single app?

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".

The Compatibility Holy War

[Arandir]

Debian is not including KDE because of any licensing issue. They are not including it because they don't want to! The compatibility issue was long laid to rest on the debian-legal list over a year ago. Some people just keep bringing it up.

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 ... then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."

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.

Re:For someone who doesn't know...

[Goonie]

Read the links from the letter, but basically:

• The QPL is open-source (and RMS-free, I believe), but it's licence is considerably more restrictive than the GPL.
• KDE is licenced under plain GPL.
• Amongst other things, the GPL says that unless it's a system library, if you link something to GPL'd code you've got to make it available under the GPL.
• Therefore, the KDE people would have to make Qt available under the terms of the GPL
• This can't happen, as the GPL permits things that are expressly forbidden under the QPL
• Therefore, KDE programs (particularly KDE binaries) areillegal to distribute at all!

There are several potential solutions:

• Stick your head in the sand and hope the problem stays away as noone is likely to sue. This is indeed a practical solution, and it's one that most of the commercial distros have chosen. Debian, however, takes its free software ideals extremely seriously, so they simply won't distribute KDE.
• Troll Tech release Qt under the GPL, LGPL, or the BSD licence. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened, and, from a business perspective, the Trolls do have sound commercial reasons for not doing so (they sell a different version that has different licencing terms and runs on Windows, and the practical effect of the QPL is making a Windows port of the existing code very difficult). The only way this is likely to happen is if some good samaritan buys out Troll Tech (IBM, some other benevolent multinational . . . are you listening - it'd be pocket change to you guys!)
• Finally, the solution that the good doctor is advocating - that KDE changes its licence to specifically allow linking against Qt without Qt being affected by the GPL. This requires them to get permission from everyone who has contributed a non-trivial patch, as well as any code that they have borrowed from any other GPL software - as well as acknowledge that there is a problem, which they really don't want to do (this is understandable, it's human nature)