[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] QPL 0.91
From:       Bernd Gehrmann <bernd () physik ! hu-berlin ! de>
Date:       1998-12-06 15:58:57
[Download RAW message or body]

Carl Thompson wrote:

> 1. Section 3 seems to imply that patches can be submitted under whatever
>    license the author chooses (should be explicitly stated), but 4c seems
>    to contradict that.

Section 3 is about source code, section 4 about binaries. The wording
could be a bit clearer about that, yes.

>    Because Programmer "A's" original patch is also under the
>    QPL, programmer "B" has to distribute his patch as the original QT,
>    programmer "A's" original patch, and a patch against that patch! 

The license doesn't use the word 'patch' anymore, so I think this
interpretation is not intended.

> 3. There is nothing in the license that forbids linking commercial
>    applications with library code released under the QPL. 

My understanding is that TT does not distinguish between commercial
and non-commercial, but between free and non-free, where 
'free' := source code available + freely redistributable +
modified versions allowed (cum grano salis)
IMHO, this distinction makes much sense.

> then?  It would allow use by GPLed software such as KDE 

The FreeQt foundation would certainly not allow a change to a license
is which is more restrictive wrt to applications linked with Qt. IIRC,
the GPL is e. g. incompatible with the mimelib used by kmail or krn,
the same applies for the MozPL (QtMozilla). This would mean that they
would have to release Qt 2.0 under two different 'free' licenses plus
the 'Professional' license. I would not like to see such a confusing
situation.

Bernd.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]