Re: Qt Freed!
Jim Pick <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think that if a lawyer looked at it - he would say the derived work
> (patch + Qt tarball) still falls under the same license terms as the
> original work (Qt tarball only).
Sure, but the patch is also a derived work.
I don't think they've thought through the implications of this, yet: You
can introduce sufficient patches to incorporate the entire functional
body of Qt's source in the patch, and distribute the patch under the
license mandated by this license.
At this point, anyone else can do whatever they want with that patch.
This is a loophole even bigger than where they grant permission to
distribute apps under the terms of the GPL.