Re: Qt license okay?
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 06:50:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The Qt 0.92 license still suffers from the patch clause. While people
> > > do consider this `free', we also consider it pretty painful (ie, it
> > > seems to rule out CVS trees, it /does/ rule out forking, and so on).
> > No it doesn't. Read the annotated version. =>
>
> I have.
>
> ] You cannot just change the code and redistribute it, as this would not
> ] be separate - people would not know what part of the software is Qt
> ] and what part is the changes you made.
>
> They don't require the patch format, no, but they do suffer from all the
> same problems.
It looks like someone changed this again. You know what really is
annoying is that this is probably mostly related to not speaking the evil
language you and I are speaking now natively. =p
> In particular anonymous cvs checkout distributes modifications in a manner
> that's /not/ separate from the original software, which violates the terms
> of the license.
>
> This is from http://www.troll.no/qpl/, QPL 0.92. I realise the +kngthbrd1
> version you posted doesn't suffer from these flaws.
I'm not in the mood to deal with it tonight. =p It's 02:12 here and am
somewhat annoyed by the wording they used there, even though I realize
what they are trying to do isn't what we're looking at here.
Of course part of the problem also stems from that some of the Trolls
want patches only and they all pretty much agree anything short of giving
up all rights to their commercial product and releasing the thing under
(and only under) the GPL will ever be good enough for RMS to consider it
GPL compatible.
--
"There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This is ..
wrong tool."
-- Babylon 5
Reply to: