Re: Qt Freed!
> "Jules Bean" <email@example.com> writes:
>> Since the consensus here is that it *is* DFSG compliance, would you
>> like to point as at the conflict?
> QPL clause
I mean clause 3 - oops l-)
> 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.