[Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll

[BRM]

First, the better place to be asking these questions is the FSF, not the 
Qt-Interests list.

IANAL, anything below is not authoritative; seek legal counsel for an 
authoritative answer.
Legal counsel should consult with the FSF for authoritative answers with respect 
to interpretation and intention beyond what is said in Copyright law.

----- Original Message ----

> > That's the relevant part: licensee. So you must seek in the copyright  law
> > which circumstances trigger the need of a license.
> Good luck  with that (reading the copyright law)!

Copyright Law assigns the Copyright Owner - whether individual or corporate - 
various rights, far more than simple copy and distribute.
 
> Wikipedia, the absolute truth ;-)  , says:

Wikipedia, and any website you read or any mailing list you communicate with, is 
not an authoritative source. Please seek legal counsel for an authoritative 
source.
 
> "Copyright is <snip> the right to control copying"  <snip>"
> with no mention of if it is for public distribution or  not."
> The US copyright law says (slightly edited for  clarity):
> §106  the owner of copyright under this title has the  exclusive rights to do
> and to authorize *any* of the following:
> (1) to  reproduce the copyrighted work in copies
> (3) to distribute copies to the  public
> Note the 'any' word, ie the copyright holder can prohibit copying  with no
> mention of distribution.

IANAL, as I said - please seek counsel for an authoritative source. Also, talk 
to the FSF.

With respect to the GPL, it has specific wording in there that specifies (i) who 
the licensee, (ii) the licensor, and (iii) that it kicks in only on 
distribution; that if you do not distribute then it does not apply.
The licensee is anyone receiving a distributed copy of the GPL/LGPL software - 
application or library.
The licensor is anyone distributing the GPL/LPGL software - application or 
library.

It also defines a derived work, which is very important for copyright law, as 
any product that relies on the GPL/LGPL software to function; in the case of the 
GPL, a derived work is required to also be under the GPL.
 
> On the other hand in the Finnish  copyright law it has been clearly (?)
> spelled out that copyright grants the  right to control the work of art by
> copying and distribution to the  public.
> 
> > The right hand moving stuff to the left hand doesn't count  as licensing.
> If you are referring to distributing within a company this  is not clear cut
> in my view.

Per the GPL/LGPL's definition of licensor, the company - not it's programmers - 
is the licensor; and you can't typically distribute to yourself.
Thus why it is generally clear that the GPL does not apply when using the 
software internally - no distribution has taken place.

Now, you might be able to make an argument when one branch/sector/division of a 
company that has its own legal entity status distributes software to another 
branch/sector/division of a company that also has its own legal status.
For example, the Northrop Grumman Corporation has one legal entity to represent 
the corporation (Northrop Grumman Corporation), but it also has a separate legal 
entity for each of its firewalled sectors - e.g. Northrop Grumman Information 
Technology, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Northrop Grumman Electronic 
Systems. Though typically each assigns their copyrights/etc to the primary legal 
entity, which could break down the argument.
 
> Not only is it unclear in GPL when a  license is needed but also who or what
> a licensee is, but also, considering  that a lot of GPL'ed ode is contributed
> into that project under some  assumption of what each individual contributor
> thinks GPL means, it is  totally unclear what interpretation holds for each
> contributed  part.

Please see the definitions section of the GPL - section 0 for GPLv3, which 
states per "Licensee":

Each licensee is addressed as “you”.  “Licensees” and “recipients” may be 
individuals or organizations.

Licensor can be implied as you must have a legal ownership or right in the first 
place to even be a licensor.

Again, IANAL - seek legal counsel for authoritative information.

Ben