On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 04:14:44PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote: > i am not entirely sure here, but it seems to me that you can produce a > commercial app with GPL stuff, and sell it. I think with QPL you have to buy > their commercial Qt version to developp apps. Is this DFSG free ? are you sure > of it ? if yes i think this is ok, but as i understood thinks up to now, is > that for a library to be free you also have to have free developpement tools > for it. Also i think that the QPL don't agree with the non discrimination > clause of the DFSG, altough i wish some more informed person would look into > it. You can charge whatever you feel is reasonable for a GPL app, but nobody paying for it is restricted from giving it away freely. This isn't all that different from what the Qt license says really, other than that they say the money is for distribution, not as part of a sale. Different words, same meaning. > 6.No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the > program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it > may not restrict the program from being used in a > business, or from being used for genetic research. > > I think in the case of a software library, the use of the library includes > developping software with it, and not only using programs developped for it. > > in this case i think the QPL discriminate against people wanting to write > commercial software with Qt. The GPL does too, and in the same way. > It is true that this is an interpretation of it, and not very clear, i think > this is a choice debian will have to make. In any case i feel this license > change is not enough for debian to consider building a distrib around kde, > beside the other issues like C vs C++, and other such. You can still ship it > in non-free though, what was not possible before. > > hope this clarifies my previous posts a bit, i hope there will be ample > discution about this though, because this is an important issue. To me it looks workable. It seems to say the same things the GPL does in different wording and spelling out some things the GPL implies but doesn't flat out say. (You have to document what patches do and when they were written, sale of the program is really only sale of the media not the software on it which must remain free, etc) This does not seem IMO to conflict with the DFSG. If someone can explain why it does, perhaps now is the time to speak up, the license IS a draft after all. -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpK9C9nimT7w.pgp
Description: PGP signature