Warwick Allison <warwick@troll.no> wrote:
> If anyone tries to tell you that GNU GPL-licensed code can link with
> Xlib, read the GNU GPL again. If your business depends on it, see a
> lawyer.

This is a red herring.  Xlib's license imposes no restrictions beyond
those of the GPL, so it's trivial to distribute a work based on Xlib
under the terms of the GPL.

Version 0.90 of the QPL explicitly restricts the form in which source
code modifications can be distributed.  [Xlib doesn't do this.]  The GPL
forbids any such restriction in programs based on GPLed code.

Xlib even explicitly includes the permission to sublicense the Xlib
code, while the QPL explicitly restricts the license which may be used
on patches.  You can't modify Qt to include GPLed code, while you can
modify Xlib to include GPLed code.

I think that the phrase "any GPL license" in the QPL should be changed
to "the LGPL".  As currently written there's a conflict between section
6c and section 3:  A court would have to determine whether section 6c
takes precedence over 3, or vice versa.

If Troll doesn't fix that conflict in a way that allows GPLed code and
Qt code to licensed together into a program, KDE needs to take additional
licensing action [such as offering the Artistic license as an option].

-- 
Raul