[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Qt license change



On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:39:38AM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:30:00PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> 
> > > More importantly, though, developing software for use with Qt is just
> > > the same as linking things with Qt.  I mean, really, if I write source
> > > code that calls into Qt, and then I compile and link it with Qt, that's
> > > what I call software development.
> > 
> > Ok, but then to save problem and insecurity about this later, they should
> > say it in they license. (like the clause about binary distribution of
> > derivative work when only patches are allowed)
> 
> I guess they could.  But licenses don't need to list _everything_ you can do
> with the program; that gets crazy.
> 
> "The license says I can do a, b, c, d, e, f and g with the program... but I
> need to do h.  Why can't I do that?"
> 
> But you can do whatever you want with it, aside from making copies.
> 

Like said i am no lawyer, nor are you i think, i will be happier if it was
explicitly stated, since i think that is not what they want, than maybe
discover later one in a courtroom that my interpretation was false.

if it is they intention, it cost them nothing to say it.

> > > Notice how all Qt patches you distribute have to give permission "to deal in
> > > the patch without restriction, including without limitation..." That means
> > > Troll can relicense your Qt patch into their commercial Qt version, so
> > > they'll always be allowed to commercially-license the latest and greatest
> > > Qt, including patches from you, without legal restrictions.
> > 
> > Will we be able to take the Qt code and fork a free version of it, if Qt
> > decide to revert to a Closed model some time in the future ?
> 
> Yes, if you want to take Qt 2.0 and distribute all the changes needed to
> make your own version.  That is, when you release gQt 5.0, it will be a
> patch against Qt 2.0.  That would be a bit annoying.
> 

in the DFSG it is written that this is not recommended ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER


Reply to: