On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 17:08, martin f krafft wrote: > > It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the > > same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the > > upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like > > Trolltech did. > > I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors > argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he > argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants > there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no "competition" > from projects building up on years of his work. > > I can completely understand this line of reasoning, and I find it > hard to argue against that. If you have convincing arguments, share > them with me (or just post them here, I sent the thread link to the > author). If it is actually a library as you say, a restrictive license will make it worthless. The fact that is is licensed under the QPL makes it GPL-incompatible; everyone who wants to link GPLd code to it and have the result be distributable will need to attach a GPL exception. Most upstream authors are notoriously forgetful or ignorant of such things; but unless they do that, Debian (in fact anyone but the copyright holder) cannot distribute applications linked against the library. I find that the authors that are aware of licensing issues, are also the kind who prefer not to grant GPL exceptions. -- Joe Wreschnig <wres0003@umn.edu>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part