Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> If someone else has another interpretation and wants to point out specific
> references to where my interpretation is incorrect, please do so.
Case closed from this end.
> That's the same issue we had when Qt was non-free isn't it?
Before KDE couldn't make it into main even if they made it public
domain. Now we can at least put parts of KDE in main with the right
exceptions to GPL.
>From KDEs viewpoint I dont know if that matters.
> We have a free Qt now and the chance to make it free and GPL compatible, the
> folks at Troll Tech are willing to listen to requests if they would REALLY
> help Qt be more acceptable to everyone. Changing section 3 of the QPL is
> all I can see that is needed.
The meaning with section 3 of QPL is to ensure Troll Tech that they
can go on making money on Qt. I don't think they will make a license
where they can't do that.
Troll Tech wish to have the possibilities to release modifications
under any license they want. That it self is more restrictive than
GPL and then we couldn't use it.
Peter er den mindst gamle af de gammeldags usenettere, og moderator på
den eneste modererede gruppe i dk.*, so there.
- citat RockBear