Re: Qt Freed!
"Jules Bean" <email@example.com> writes:
> "David Damerell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Qt not freed. It's not compatible with the DFSG/ Open Source
>> Definition, and the Open Source people may well be pissy about the
>> misuse of their trademark. It looks like an attempt to placate us
>> without actually preventing Troll Tech from charging commercial
>> application developers, which has, IMAO, been their aim all along.
>> It might be good enough to get Qt into nonfree and KDE into contrib,
> Since the consensus here is that it *is* DFSG compliance, would you
> like to point as at the conflict?
QPL clause requires that derived works be distributed as patches
(which is allowed but discouraged by DFSG clause 4) with the patches
under a particular license (QPL clause 3b).
DFSG clause 3 requires that derived works may be distributed under the
same license as the original work. You can't do this with a modified
QPL-licensed work as it would break QPL cause 3b.