Re: QPL still needed?
Kevin Forge <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The LGPL is not a real option right now. Those QT customers who don't think they need support will be hapy to use it under the LGPL for all propriatery development. ante wrote: >On Monday 07 April 2003 11:32, Matthias Ettrich wrote: > > > >>Currently this isn't permitted by the GPL, but by the QPL: >> >> "5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to >> compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you >> or by others." >> >>However, this could easily be achieved with a little addition to the GNU >>GPL, practically the reverse case of >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs >> >> > >The GPL with such an exception makes a LGPL. A straight license - without an >exception - gives a clearer situation than a license with an exception. So, >the LGPL may be a better option. > >This would be painless: keep the QPL, and add the exception to the GPL (or use >the LGPL). Over time developers will use the GPL+ (LGPL). > >Then the QPL can be dropped. It is possible to make an exception then for >those who have rights under the QPL that they might lose. Just a transitional >exception. > >Cordialemente, > >Ante > > > >****** > >http://home.uwnet.nl/~vita > > > > > >