On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new > QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic > requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually > you wind up with a build process with files you shouldn't rename and an > executable which must be renamed.] The QPL does not require patches. It prefers them, but doesn't require them. You could just as easily provide the original for reference and let someone else diff it (which is at least a major improvement over requiring that only patches be made..) And the language used in that portion of the license is ambiguous enough (not my bug--that one's courtesy of the Trolls' lawyers) that you could drive a truck through it given that anything not explicitly stated can be taken any way you reasonably could take it under contract law. Releases without source it does forbid. The GPL does this too. There is a bug in the license I'd have fixed if anyone had bothered to point it out before the license was final that the license indicates you must release the source to anything that uses Qt unless you have a commercial license. Of course the license is a Copyright license and that requirement is beyond the scope of Copyright law, so it generally is unenforcable. (Which is why someone should have pointed it out so I could have removed it before I was finished and their lawyer had been brought in to finalize it..) -- - Joseph Carter GnuPG public key: 1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43 - knghtbrd@debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kensey> RMS for President??? <RelDrgn> ...or ESR, he wants a new job ;)
Attachment:
pgp5C58h_bnmn.pgp
Description: PGP signature