Peter Makholm wrote:
>Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> One time GPL - Always _GPL_.
>>> One time QPL - Always Open Source.
>> If that were the case it'd be no problem since the GPL is an OSS license.
>It will be a problem, but the problem is not QPL, it is GPL.
>I can't make a GPLed program that demands a not GPLed library, and
>that's the problem with KDE. They try to make a GPLed program that
>demands a GPLed library.
This is probably the reason I get so nervous about the GPL. It would be
*really* nice if someone could provide an "add-on" clause, which I could
use on my programs (ie, my programs are licensed as GPL+add-on)
specifically to allow me to develop using non-GPL (but OSS/DFSG Free)
The fact that I can't choose to license my program under the GPL without
accepting restrictions on my view of "free" software which I can use for
development, is very worrying to me. It's more likely to make me move
away from the GPL, than to avoid Qt (should Qt be the best choice for my
To my mind, adding a template for such a clause to the DFSG would help
promote free software in exactly this sort of case...