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

Re: The QPL licence

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

Reply to: