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

Re: Qt license okay?

On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 11:34:59PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:28:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> > > license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> > > commercialize a version of his software.  I suggested the Qt
> > > license which was at version 0.92 at the time (and still is).
> > The Qt 0.92 license still suffers from the patch clause. While people
> > do consider this `free', we also consider it pretty painful (ie, it
> > seems to rule out CVS trees, it /does/ rule out forking, and so on).
> No it doesn't.  Read the annotated version.  =>

I have.

]    You cannot just change the code and redistribute it, as this would not
]    be separate - people would not know what part of the software is Qt
]    and what part is the changes you made.

They don't require the patch format, no, but they do suffer from all the
same problems.

In particular anonymous cvs checkout distributes modifications in a manner
that's /not/ separate from the original software, which violates the terms
of the license.

This is from http://www.troll.no/qpl/, QPL 0.92. I realise the +kngthbrd1
version you posted doesn't suffer from these flaws.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: pgpJOZhr29t52.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: