On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 07:03:29PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes: > > > The QPL requires a commercial license for proprietary apps.. > > The GPL does not allow commercial apps but doesn't offer other licensing. > > > > Boils down to the same thing: If the terms are not good enough, you need to > > contact the authors for a different license. > > Why can't I write it so clear :) > > In this matter QPL and GPL are just the same crap. They're both written to be legally complete. This seems to greatly contradict writing something that is understandable by humans. (read whatever implication you want into that, it was probably intended...) > > Not so sure we need to push at all. I think there MIGHT be a need to ask > > them if they'd consider allowing patches to be included in the source rahter > > than seperately, but I'm not convinced yet that'll be in conflict with the > > GPL. > > Why? > > DFSG allows this scheme (its is strictly marked as a compromis, but > allows it). Debian dosn't even suffer from this scheme, we're already > shipping upstream sources AND patches. That's FINE by the DFSG. Question is, does it work with the GPL? A reasonable compromise, but I'm not sure RMS agrees. (I don't expect to EVER see RMS compromise anything personally, and I think that's part of why I respect him so much.) If RMS doesn't think that's good enough, I'll disagree with him, but I will respect him no less because I happen to disagree. > There is the case with _selling_ Qt. But I don't think that a problem > for TrollTech, they will always offer the cheapest Qt Free Edition. See my other message regarding how I see "reasonable" being interpretted (ie it's determined why what you're willing to pay for it in the form you're getting it) -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpuU_HO3rFxN.pgp
Description: PGP signature