Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try
Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their
> patch, they will be able to make sure they can't, regardless of what
> any of us do.
Nope. Patches are derived works. Think about what a patch looks like.
Even if you come up with a patch format that doesn't include anything
of the original, binaries are still derived works, so you can apply
Aside: one thing the QPL drafts lack is a definition for "patch".
I'm going on the usual practice for software development, but I think
that this omission will need to be rectified unless the patch clause
is entirely eliminated [perhaps in favor of a relabelling clause --
I see no reason to call a Qt derivative Qt if the API might be different].
> 5. It'd still be cool to have a license that was compatible with the GPL
> if possible. It might not be possible, but if it were possible I was
> going to try.
I don't think this will be possible with a patch clause. I think this
would be possible with a relabelling clause. Ultimately, it's up
to Troll Tech.