On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:25:59AM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: > > Yes. One nit: > > > > Paragraph 3b appears to essentially put patches in the public domain. I > > assume that what they intend is that they be put under the QPL. > > Hah. Don't be fooled. > > They want to be able to relicense your patches for the commercial Qt. This > isn't such a bad thing to want, and I don't think it conflicts with the > DFSG. (If they didn't require this, commercial Qt would soon fall way > behind the free one -- then Troll Tech has a problem.) The NPL has a similar bit of wording.. -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Description: PGP signature