Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@worldvisions.ca> wrote:
> These two sets of patch licensing terms are incompatible.

Yep

> 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.

Interesting idea.

Both allow you to provide the patch under both license, but there's
still a conflict where each claim that you can't impose the 
restrictions of the other license.

The simplest solution is:

*** QPL Thu Nov 19 10:50:30 1998
--- QPL.fixed   Thu Nov 19 10:51:04 1998
***************
*** 104,110 ****
       c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
       programs, reusable components and other software items that link
       with the original or modified versions of the Software under the
!      Artistic license or any GPL license.

                            Limitations of Liability

--- 104,110 ----
       c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
       programs, reusable components and other software items that link
       with the original or modified versions of the Software under the
!      Artistic license or the LGPL.

                            Limitations of Liability


-- 
Raul