Mixing Licenses ... any hints needed
Wolfdieter Schmidt
I am currently planning to write a program which uses Trolltech Qt 4.
And I will use the Qt4 - GPL version. So as I understand my code has to
be GPL.
No problem so far.
But like every modern GUI, I need icons, buttons and some tiny pictures.
Now the question is: Can these icons/pictures/graphics be licensed in
any other way, can these graphics hold a copyright of some company? Or
am I forced to just use GPLed graphics?
Thanks
Wolfdieter
Alexander Terekhov
Wolfdieter Schmidt wrote:
>
> Newsgroup,
>
> I am currently planning to write a program which uses Trolltech Qt 4.
>
> And I will use the Qt4 - GPL version. So as I understand my code has to
> be GPL.
You understand it wrong. The FSF and Trolltech simply want you to believe
in their utterly moronic interpretation of the GPL and its legal effect,
but you don't have to. License contracts are interpreted against the
licensors and overreaching unlawful terms simply trigger unenforceability
and provide immunity to real infringers in court of law -- visit
<oslawblog.com/2004/11/gpl-and-compilations.html#c110563622217146108>.
>
> No problem so far.
Uh. The FSF is on record telling to a federal judge in court of law that
"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL. In spite of your program's dependency on Trolltech Qt 4
program, it is copyrighted solely by you. The Trolltech Qt 4 is just
another program (the copyright law doesn't distinguish "programs" from
"libraries"; a "program" under copyright law is "a set of statements or
instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer...").
>
> But like every modern GUI, I need icons, buttons and some tiny pictures.
>
> Now the question is: Can these icons/pictures/graphics be licensed in
> any other way, can these graphics hold a copyright of some company?
Yes, and yes.
> Or
> am I forced to just use GPLed graphics?
No.
regards,
alexander.
Wei Mingzhi
I'd recommend asking Trolltech for clarification about this issue.
Regards,
Wei Mingzhi
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
The GNU GPL software freedom is about copyright.
All you need to do if you have trademarked stuff is simply to replace
the trademarked stuff (images, name references, etc... consult your
lawyer about the respective trademark usage license).
Rui
Qua, 2006-06-28 às 16:06 +0800, Wei Mingzhi escreveu:
> In my opinion, using non-free artwork files is not illegal as this is
> actually what Red Hat is doing. But I'm not sure about this as I'm not
> a lawyer, and this is obviously not what Trolltech intended. And I'd
> also strongly discourage using non-free data files (finding some free
> ones - not just "GPLed ones" - are very easy, isn't it?).
>
> I'd recommend asking Trolltech for clarification about this issue.
>
> Regards,
> Wei Mingzhi
>
> 2006/6/28, Wolfdieter Schmidt <wolfdiete...@arcor.de>:
> _______________________________________________
> gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
> gnu-misc...@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
Trolltech's "intentions" is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the whole
scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't name
Trolltech, Inc., Palo Alto as a defendant in his action (which is
currently under appeal) right from the beginning... attaching stuff like
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/118/
-----
Can I now use Qt for free everywhere?
Entry number: 118 - Can I now use Qt for free everywhere?
Answer:
No, this is not the case. You can use Qt for free only if you are writing
Open Source software following the obligations of the GPL license. You
will then need to publish the source code of your software for free,
unlimited re-use and re-distribution by anyone for any purpose.
-----
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/190/
-----
Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make non-opensource software
for internal use in my company/organization?
Entry number: 190 - Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make
non-opensource software for internal use in my company/organization?
Answer:
No. Software developed with the Qt Open Source Edition is always open
source software, i.e. it can only be distributed under a open source
software license. In particular, all the source code for all the modules
your software is based on, regardless of whether they have been written
by you or by others, must be open source software (because of the "viral"
nature of the GPL). This is part of our commitment to the open source
software community, and enables those who contribute to the open source
software pool to do so without paying license fees.
Although it is possible to write open source software for internal use,
it is difficult to ensure that such software is used and distributed
legally. For example, if your open source software requires any modules
that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU
GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license
agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of
non-disclosure agreement, then you cannot distribute it at all; hence
it cannot be given to consultants, employees for their personal
computers, subsidiaries, other divisions, or even to new owners.
-----
as exhibits to his complaint.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> weimi...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
>> this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
>
> Trolltech's "intentions" is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
> whole scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't
> name Trolltech, Inc., Palo Alto as a defendant in his action (which
> is currently under appeal) right from the beginning...
Because Trolltech does not compete with his alleged operating business
and so he'd look even more silly with regard to his non-existent
standing as he already does?
> Entry number: 118 - Can I now use Qt for free everywhere?
> Answer:
>
> No, this is not the case. You can use Qt for free only if you are writing
> Open Source software following the obligations of the GPL license. You
> will then need to publish the source code of your software for free,
> unlimited re-use and re-distribution by anyone for any purpose.
> -----
>
> Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make non-opensource software
> for internal use in my company/organization?
>
> Entry number: 190 - Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make
> non-opensource software for internal use in my company/organization?
>
> Answer:
[...]
> Although it is possible to write open source software for internal use,
> it is difficult to ensure that such software is used and distributed
> legally. For example, if your open source software requires any modules
> that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU
> GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license
> agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of
> non-disclosure agreement, then you cannot distribute it at all; hence
> it cannot be given to consultants, employees for their personal
> computers, subsidiaries, other divisions, or even to new owners.
> -----
>
> as exhibits to his complaint.
It would be nonsensical unless he was suing Trolltech, and he would
utterly not have standing to claim damages. And IBM, RedHat and the
FSF can hardly be blamed for the fantasies of Trolltech.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > weimi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> >> this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
> >
> > Trolltech's "intentions" is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
> > whole scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't
> > name Trolltech, Inc., Palo Alto as a defendant in his action (which
> > is currently under appeal) right from the beginning...
>
> Because Trolltech does not compete with his alleged operating business
His alleged operating system is in competition with Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux
of Red Hat and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell, acording to his complaint.
And both these brands of Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux include Qt under the GPL
license agreement he is complaining about, IIRC.
[...]
> And IBM, RedHat and the
> FSF [dak meant Novell] can hardly be blamed for the fantasies of
> Trolltech.
Well, well, well. It would be fun see IBM, RedHat and Novell telling
the court to not take official Trolltech's statements seriously (so to
speak), to begin with. No?
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > weimi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> this is obviously not what Trolltech intended
>> >
>> > Trolltech's "intentions" is smoking gun stuff to invalidate the
>> > whole scheme once and for all. I still wonder why Wallace didn't
>> > name Trolltech, Inc., Palo Alto as a defendant in his action
>> > (which is currently under appeal) right from the beginning...
>>
>> Because Trolltech does not compete with his alleged operating
>> business
>
> His alleged operating system is in competition with
> Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Red Hat and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell,
> acording to his complaint. And both these brands of
> Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux include Qt under the GPL license agreement he is
> complaining about, IIRC.
But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech. And nothing
Wallace puts forward of his _own_ doing appears to compete with Qt.
And he'd be free to bundle Qt with his own offer if he wanted to.
> [...]
>
>> And IBM, RedHat and the
>> FSF [dak meant Novell] can hardly be blamed for the fantasies of
>> Trolltech.
>
> Well, well, well. It would be fun see IBM, RedHat and Novell telling
> the court to not take official Trolltech's statements seriously (so to
> speak), to begin with. No?
No. Definitely no. Nobody takes your official statements seriously,
either, and definitely should not.
You can't take somebody to court because of nonsense some third party
chooses to spout.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
> Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
rights to Qt).
http://www.answers.com/topic/meeting-of-the-minds
[...]
> You can't take somebody to court because of nonsense some third party
> chooses to spout.
The defendants are not "third parties" to each other in the context of
Wallace's action. They are alleged antitrust co-conspirators acting as
parties to the GPL license agreement, and they are supposed to have
consensus ad idem among them as a matter of law (or they would be
engaged in massive copyright infringement on gigantic scale that would
warrant criminal prosecution by law enforcement authorities). Recall
that
-----
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract
(and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(“Whether express or implied, a license is a contract").
-----
and that now the FSF itself is on record telling to a federal judge in
court of law that the GPL "contract controls". Not only Welte (who has
established the contract status of the GPL in Germany, my what a hero)
got it, so to speak.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
>> Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
>
> Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
> covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
> rights to Qt).
Uh, they _have_ no rights to Qt. They have _license_ to distribute Qt
under the GPL, but not because of any agreement or understanding.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/meeting-of-the-minds
Does not apply. Heeding a license does not imply "mutual agreement"
because it does not influence the licensor's decision. Things would
be different if they had paid Trolltech for releasing Qt under the
GPL. But they still would not be responsible for Trolltech's
interpretation of the GPL.
> [...]
>
>> You can't take somebody to court because of nonsense some third
>> party chooses to spout.
>
> The defendants are not "third parties" to each other in the context
> of Wallace's action.
Well, just because Wallace is a loonie does not mean that the court
have to follow his lead.
> They are alleged antitrust co-conspirators acting as parties to the
> GPL license agreement, and they are supposed to have consensus ad
> idem among them as a matter of law (or they would be engaged in
> massive copyright infringement on gigantic scale that would warrant
> criminal prosecution by law enforcement authorities).
Nonsense. They heed each other's licenses. That does not make them
co-conspirators any more than the average Windows user is a
co-conspiritor of Microsoft when he chooses to to heed the EULA.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
> >> Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
> >
> > Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
> > covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
> > rights to Qt).
>
> Uh, they _have_ no rights to Qt. They have _license_ to distribute Qt
> under the GPL, but not because of any agreement or understanding.
You never learn (recall Hollaar's responses to your nonsense), and just
got it wrong as usual. They got a bunch of rights (by accepting the GPL
license contract) to reproduce Qt, make derivatives, etc. The right to
distribute copies of Qt (and its derivative works) is statutory (17 USC
109) for all owners of lawfully made copies -- it doesn't need a
license. 17 USC 106(3) ("distribute copies") doesn't come into play
unless there's infringement of 17 USC 106(1) and/or 17 USC 106(2).
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> But Novell and RedHat are not responsible for the interpretation
>> >> Trolltech places on the parts copyrighted by Trolltech.
>> >
>> > Both Novell and Red Hat are *parties* to the agreement with Trolltech
>> > covering Qt under the GPL (without that agreement they would have no
>> > rights to Qt).
>>
>> Uh, they _have_ no rights to Qt. They have _license_ to distribute Qt
>> under the GPL, but not because of any agreement or understanding.
>
> You never learn (recall Hollaar's responses to your nonsense), and just
> got it wrong as usual. They got a bunch of rights (by accepting the GPL
> license contract) to reproduce Qt, make derivatives, etc.
They got _permission_. You get _rights_ in exchange for some
consideration (usually money), or because they are guaranteed by some
law. But there are no rights associated with software you happened to
come across somewhere.
> The right to distribute copies of Qt (and its derivative works) is
> statutory (17 USC 109) for all owners of lawfully made copies -- it
> doesn't need a license.
Wrong. They can pass on a "lawfully made" copy, but can't create
additional copies without permission. And "lawfully made" already
requires that there has been some arrangement made under which they
get the copy. And "download pursuant to GPL" is such an arrangement.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Wallace vs IBM et all (plus Trolltech) ...]
> They got _permission_.
The GPL is a grant of IP rights established by the copyright and patent
laws, idiot. It's a contract, retard. (The patent license is implied,
not express.)
-----
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If a breach of contract
(and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . ”); see also
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(“Whether express or implied, a license is a contract").
-----
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> And "download pursuant to GPL" is such an arrangement.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
regards,
alexander.