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

Re: Qt Freed!

"Jules Bean" <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: 

>> Qt not freed. It's not compatible with the DFSG/ Open Source
>> Definition, and the Open Source people may well be pissy about the
>> misuse of their trademark. It looks like an attempt to placate us
>> without actually preventing Troll Tech from charging commercial
>> application developers, which has, IMAO, been their aim all along.
>> It might be good enough to get Qt into nonfree and KDE into contrib,
>> though.
> Since the consensus here is that it *is* DFSG compliance, would you
> like to point as at the conflict?

QPL clause requires that derived works be distributed as patches
(which is allowed but discouraged by DFSG clause 4) with the patches
under a particular license (QPL clause 3b).

DFSG clause 3 requires that derived works may be distributed under the
same license as the original work.  You can't do this with a modified
QPL-licensed work as it would break QPL cause 3b.


Reply to: