Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: >>further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is, > > Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the Trolltech > annotation, altough it has not yet been endorsed officially by the ocaml > authors : > > This is a license designed for libraries, therefore we must also talk about > application programs or other libraries (components) that are linked with > the software, as these include portions of Qt when in binary form. Of > course, given the term "link", there is no differentiation between static > and dynamic linking. > > In essence this clause says that you may develop programs that link with Qt > provided that you develop Open Source software. The problem with this annotation is that the last sentence is completely false. It is not sufficient for the software you link to a QPLed work to be Open Source; it must also be provided to the original author. One cannot write an Open Source program, distribute it within an organization, or to a small group of people, and thereby satisfy the QPL; the program must also be distributed to the author on request. If the QPL truly just required works linking to the QPLed work to be Open Source, then that clause would be perfectly acceptable. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature