Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the source code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they could not legally distribute a compiled binary that included copyrightable parts of GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries under the GPL.
I don't agree with some points in this.The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when distributed, whether in source form or compiled form.
Please point out the flaw in this reasoning. Thank you. Shriramana Sharma.