[Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll

[Kustaa Nyholm]

> 
> On Monday 04 October 2010 06:48:25 Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
>>>> The only occasion where you are allowed to use  GPL-libraries without
>>>> your becoming GPL is when that app is only used within  the
>>>> firm/business unit that wrote it in the first place.
>> 
>> Is there any wording in the GPL that supports this?
> 
> No. But if you work for a corporation, there is wording in your contract to do
> exactly with this. Even worse, when you do the programming for money for
> someone else, most (all?) contracts state that you have no rights on the code
> at all. They are the one to deal with licensing and copyright and they are the
> one to deal with copyright infringement...

That is of course true but has nothing to do with GPL ie no matter what my
contracts with other parties say makes no difference to what GPL grants or
denies from me. 

If they are in conflict I need to give up on using GPL'ed software.


> 
> Oh, and the gpl talks about "public", if the software doesn't see the public,
> there is no reason to follow the license.

That is very unclear in the text of the GPL. The only reference to 'public'
in the text is in always connection of 'public license' and it is not
defined what it means to have or give a 'public license'.

Does 'public' mean that the license is granted to anyone or what? Or does it
mean, like as suggested, that license is only required for public
distribution...  

The GPL says 'You may copy and distribute verbatim copies' and 'You may
modify your copy ... and distribute such modifications' ; I do not see any
restriction or amendment to 'public distribution' here.

> 
>> GPL talks about 'you' not 'firm/business unit' and thus I've always taken
>> it that GPL gives rights to individuals and as soon as you give a copy to
>> anyone else, you are distributing or conveying as the new GPL3 calls it.
> 
> If several people are the "you" your interpretation would fail already within
> a team of developers.
> 

Well, it is no *my* definition or *your* definition that counts, in the
first place it is the definition of FSF that counts and the final word is
with the court of law. The definition of 'you' is not clearly spelled out in
the GPL, the only definition they give is: 'Each licensee is addressed as
"you".' So I guess this would require deeper knowledge of the law to know
how the word 'you' is construed in these circumstances.

br Kusti