Re: Qt license okay?

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith 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.
[...]
> 
> It might be worth your while looking at the Mozilla Public License,
> which is targetted at a similar situation (an application that
> people want to be able to make proprietry releases for). It's also
> available in a boilerplate form so it should be easy to apply to
> your own software. I think. Check http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/

I looked at that first and it looked complicated and I didn't
understand it.  If the ability to incorporate submitted third
party patches into a commercial derived work covered by this
section:

  2.2. Contributor Grant. 

     Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide,
     royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party
     intellectual property claims:

         (a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform,
         sublicense and distribute the Modifications created by
         such Contributor (or portions thereof) either on an
         unmodified basis, with other Modifications, as Covered
         Code or as part of a Larger Work; and

What other advantages (other than `redistribution in the form of
patches' for Qt and not for NPL) does the NPL have compared to
the Qt license?  Now if the time for me to ask my friend to
switch licenses again.  Thanks!

Peter