On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > email@example.com writes: > > > but there is still the problem on commercial software production with Qt, you > > have to buy Qt commercial to produce commercial Qt products. I am > > not entirely sure but they were comments saying that this is not > > FDSG compliant. and i seem to remember there is some limitation on > > this, something about fee you can charge, or other such. > > Is it this you're thinking of > > >From DFSG: > > 3. Derived Works > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license > of the original software. > > Are applikations linked with a library a drived work? They are, yes. > I fully understand TrollTechs clause. Even programers have to eat ;-) The QPL requires a commercial license for proprietary apps.. The GPL does not allow commercial apps but doesn't offer other licensing. Boils down to the same thing: If the terms are not good enough, you need to contact the authors for a different license. > > anyway, it is only a draft, and thus we will have to wait for the definitiv > > version. > > Nope, we have to push in the right direction! Not so sure we need to push at all. I think there MIGHT be a need to ask them if they'd consider allowing patches to be included in the source rahter than seperately, but I'm not convinced yet that'll be in conflict with the GPL. -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Description: PGP signature