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

Qt license - not a flamewar (I hope)

On Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 02:40:11AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> A> (4) QPL.  Is free.  The patches clause means nothing.
> This is your opinion, others have stated theirs.

RMS has stated his opinion that it is free.

Not that it matters since it's still not free in a manner that is GPL
compatible, and while KDE is planning to change to a non-GPL license, they
haven't yet and Qt 2.0 isn't out yet.

FWIW, I will be in perhaps as little as a few days posting my suggestions
for changes to the QPL which fix some holes we found together, should quiet
anyone who has problems with the current license, and as a consequence of
the rest, probably will be GPL compatible.  (I hope.)

Troll Tech may or may not like the changes, but when I'm done figuring them
out, I will make what I have so far public before asking Troll Tech to
consider it.

And yes, the DFSG2 is evil.  I'm doing this with help from other developers
and even some non-developers because it's RIGHT, not because Ian wants to
make the current draft non-free all of a sudden.  Whether or not this was
his intent, it LOOKS like it was to anyone who doesn't know he's wanted to
make these changes for the past 6 months at least.

I still disagree with the changes and plan to vote against them if it gets
that far.

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgps725pl7ErC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: