Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response by ....
"hmm, definitely interesting. Even if the GPL were "fixed", though, it might not be a wise idea to release Qt Free Edition under the GPL. For one thing, this would likely mean that the only free
software that could link to Qt would be software licensed under the GPL, since the GPL would most likely still be "viral". This would shut out the possibility of BSD-licensed software linking to
Qt, or even LGPL'd software, which would throw another monkey wrench into KDE's licensing, since the libs of KDE are LGPL'd so that proprietary software developers could use them. "
The solution to that is an extended QPL that has one
additional paragraph. Something along the lines of "if you want to, you can relicense the code under the terms of the GPL V3".
Ok, that's it for me. For further questions, don't hesitate to send me an email, Jeff.
btw: you were right with the typo, I meant "GPL" not "QPL". No such typo in this comment, though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response by ....
It sounds like what you are saying is that despite the FSF's protestations, a GPL'd library *can* be used to create proprietary works because all the module stuff the GPL refers to is nonsense.
It only sounds like it? That was what I was saying. And not only me. Did you look at the Lineo webpage I was referring to?
I'm not sure, but it sounds like what you are saying is that Troll Tech would be willing to relicense Qt under the GPL, if it was clear that the GPL would actually prevent the Qt Free Edition from being used for proprietary software. Am I getting closer or more and more off base?
No, you are getting closer. You just repeated what Eirik Eng wrote in his Freshmeat editorial and what I tried to explain twice today.