faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: GPL only
by Datschge on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:37
|
| Nope, since QT is also under QPL which allows any and all true FOSS licences the app can keep its BSD licence. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:50
|
We are going in circles here.
Cartman was asking for QT/Mac to be licensed under the QPL - it isn't at the moment.
Then anon asserted that this prevented BSD licensed software from linking with QT/Mac legally.
Then I pointed out that this wasn't true, since you can link BSD and GPLed software, with the derivative work being GPLed.
The fact that other versions of QT are available under the QPL doesn't mean that the Mac version is. The Mac version isn't, and this means that if you want to link to it, you must agree to the GPL, pay for the commercial license, or use the evaluation version, which expires after 30 days. None of these are the QPL, and only the GPL is feasible for an open-source project to use.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Datschge on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @05:29
|
Yes, you are right, I got fooled by the line stating QT/Mac has a dual licence (commercial, GPL). I guess I better start calling QT/X11's licencing scheme a triple licence (commercial, QPL, GPL) for avoiding confusing myself again.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|