Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 04:14:41AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > The only way Troll Tech can do anything is to use GPL. I don't believe
> > that they want to do that. GPL states clearly that it should be GPL or
> > a part of the OS.
> I don't mean to be as rude as this sounds but: You're wrong, and you're
> wrong in a way that REALLY REALLY REALLY annoys me.
> Tell me, why do we have GPL programs that use libxpm, or even xlib?
Because they allow you to license your changes however you want. If your
program is GPL, you must license all changes under the GPL.
>From GPL section 2:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
If your program is QPL, you must license all changes as follows.
b. The patch must be explicitly licensed by the following clauses
without additional restriction:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this patch, to deal in the patch without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
of the patch, subject to the following conditions: Any copyright
notice and this permission notice must be included in all copies or
substantial portions of the patch.
These two sets of patch licensing terms are incompatible.
However: I'm not sure what would happen if I provided my patch with _both_
licenses as alternatives. The wording of the GPL makes it look like this is
allowed, but I'm not sure in the QPL.