Misleading licensing question

[Creature]

Hello,

I have a question regarding the license of a specific project, namely QScintilla. QScintilla is licensed under GPL (v2 or v3 versions are available). I'm developing an application that is using QScintilla (I've not released it yet), and would like to keep it closed-source (but free and I don't plan to sell it, but if that option were to remain available, that would be nice). At first, considering the nature of the GPL, I thought "oh I have to make it open-source", since QScintilla is compiled as a shared library (we all know that there are multiple opinions regarding the usage of GPL'ed shared libraries, but according to the FSF, it isn't allowed and the shared library should be LGPL'ed for that to be "legal"). However, I recently found out that QScintilla allows licensing "exceptions" to the GPL. The license states that your software may also use the GPL'ed QScintilla if your software is licensed under other free licenses such as BSD, Apache, MPL, MIT, ...

But now comes the tricky part: am I allowed to have closed-source software licensed under the BSD license? And if not, the BSD license allowed incorporation of the software in other (possibly proprietary software), but how does that work? The only reason I was allowed to use QScintilla is because I used the BSD license, but another proprietary program using my BSD'ed tool is only required to credit me and keep the license intact. Is the person of the proprietary software still bound to the QScintilla GPL?

Sorry if this sounds like a question with an obvious answer, but the world of licensing can be dangerous and I want to be prepared. If there is really no other option, I can still GPL my code.

Thanks in advance,
Creature

[Owen]

One can't have closed source BSD licensed software (that would be like having closed source GPL licensed software...)

Yes, linking to QStintilla via a BSD licensed library would appear to be a hole in this licensing strategy. I believe similar applies to Berkeley DB.

Personally, I'd avoid QScintilla.

[Creature]

Thanks for your quick response, I've shimmed through the license again and detected an additional (confusing clause):

Code: Select all

Additional rights granted beyond the GPL (the "Exception").

...

2) The right to link non-Open Source applications with pre-installed versions of
the Licensed Software: You may link applications with binary pre-installed
versions of the Licensed Software, provided that such applications have been
developed and are deployed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
QScintilla Commercial License Agreement

So, does this mean that I could use QScintilla in a BSD licensed plugin DLL, not ship that plugin DLL with my main application but allow separate download and offer both (the core application under a closed-source license without the BSD'ed DLL as well as the BSD'ed DLL using QScintilla)? I could then just recommend/require users to download both and place them in a specific folder (or even provide a GUI for automatically downloading that same plug-in from the site).

[NickJohnson]

BSD licensed software can definitely be closed-source. All the BSD-style licenses state (with respect to source) is that if the source code is redistributed (modified or not), the copyright statement and license must be preserved, and that the source code is able to be redistributed freely. If you don't actually release the source code, there is no way anyone can get it, and unlike the GPL, nobody can demand to see it.

[Creature]

BSD licensed software can definitely be closed-source. All the BSD-style licenses state (with respect to source) is that if the source code is redistributed (modified or not), the copyright statement and license must be preserved, and that the source code is able to be redistributed freely. If you don't actually release the source code, there is no way anyone can get it, and unlike the GPL, nobody can demand to see it.

So in fact this would appear to be an "inconsistency" in their license? Since it's perfectly legal to license my application under BSD (and it would not violate the first clause containing the "You must license under GPL or any of these licenses: BSD, ..."), it would also be illegal since I'm violating the second clause (if I were to pre-ship the plug-in with the core application), but that's not a real BSD license anymore, since the BSD license allows me to do closed-source software. Also, if I were to build the plugin DLL into my main application (and license the entire app as closed-source BSD), I would in theory not be violating any of the clauses: I'm licensing under BSD (which they explicitely permitted in the first clause) and I'm also not shipping a pre-installed version of the licensed software in a non-opensource application, since the non-opensource application in se is the licensed software.

This is some whacky license if you ask me. In fact I dislike the library already for licensing under GPL (and a commercial license). Qt licenses under LGPL or commercial and Scintilla itself has a very permissive license. They just take both permissive licenses and combine it into one crappy GPL license, forcing people to abide by it (apologies to people who are fond of the GPL, I'm not trying to invoke a religious war here, just stating my opinion).

[Kevin]

What's so hard to understand about their approach: If you develop open source software, they are generous enough to allow you to use their code even if you don't use the GPL. You don't, so this doesn't apply to you and you have to buy the commercial license. Why do you think you have a right to use their work without paying them, just because they would also accept open source code as a payment alternative to money?

[Creature]

What's so hard to understand about their approach: If you develop open source software, they are generous enough to allow you to use their code even if you don't use the GPL. You don't, so this doesn't apply to you and you have to buy the commercial license. Why do you think you have a right to use their work without paying them, just because they would also accept open source code as a payment alternative to money?

What's hard to understand is "what about others?". It's not so much about the software using QScintilla directly, the license is clear about that. It's "what about programs using (linking, shipping, downloading, ...) or deriving from the software (not licensed under GPL) using QScintilla?".

[Combuster]

If all you care about is the limit, then if the program can't provide the intended functionality without QScintilla, then it's not independent from it and as such bound by the GPL. However hard you try to slither around the legal terms in the license after that doesn't matter as you violated the spirit of the license, which of its own is sufficient for a conviction.

[Creature]

If all you care about is the limit, then if the program can't provide the intended functionality without QScintilla, then it's not independent from it and as such bound by the GPL. However hard you try to slither around the legal terms in the license after that doesn't matter as you violated the spirit of the license, which of its own is sufficient for a conviction.

Well, the plugin for the application (a shared library) does depend on QScintilla and can't function without it. However, the core application (for which the plug-in is written), can do perfectly fine without the plugin and QScintilla. But I see your point. I'm not looking for loopholes in every piece of software to hit them where they forgot something, I would just like to keep everything closed-source if I could, but if I can't, so be it.

[AndrewAPrice]

So, does this mean that I could use QScintilla in a BSD licensed plugin DLL, not ship that plugin DLL with my main application but allow separate download and offer both (the core application under a closed-source license without the BSD'ed DLL as well as the BSD'ed DLL using QScintilla)? I could then just recommend/require users to download both and place them in a specific folder (or even provide a GUI for automatically downloading that same plug-in from the site).

Yes. You can make your plug-in GPL and release the source code for it.

But, it needs to look like an authentic plugin that's not distributed with the code. Having a "stage 1" installer (downloading your proprietary code) that launches a "stage 2" installer (the open source DLL) before the application can run is still considered packaged together, just because they were downloaded separately in two stages does not change this.

What you can do, is have it come with a built in basic text control, then allow users to optionally go out of there way to download your GPL QScintilla plugin.

[Mikemk]

So, does this mean that I could use QScintilla in a BSD licensed plugin DLL, not ship that plugin DLL with my main application but allow separate download and offer both (the core application under a closed-source license without the BSD'ed DLL as well as the BSD'ed DLL using QScintilla)? I could then just recommend/require users to download both and place them in a specific folder (or even provide a GUI for automatically downloading that same plug-in from the site).

Yes. You can make your plug-in GPL and release the source code for it.

I've actually wondered this for a while.

What if it's not absolutely necessary, but the user is guaranteed to want it (e.g. fonts, lib<png, gif, etc.>, etc.)? Would the seperate packages still be legal?

[Combuster]

e.g. fonts, lib<png, gif, etc.>, etc.

Actually, the things that everybody does want tend to come with less restrictive licenses. Especially because such needs are universal.

Considering the pure hypothetical case, I can't say much more than "IANAL" to that.

[sortie]

Why resurrect such an old thread?

Besides, I am not a lawyer. If you need licensing advise, especially in regards to GPL compatibility with other licenses even in the face of exceptions, talk to the FSF licensing enforcement people. They are supposedly happy to answer such questions.