On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, andrewg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 14, 11:44 am, Evan Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm no lawyer, but it appears there was already an exception list[1] >> for the GPL-licensed code that would've covered us anyway? So I >> believe this LGPL thing has no affect on us, except in its potential >> broader implications for the space of other software in the future. >> >> I, too, would be happy to review patches for Qt support. >> >> [1]http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html > > I'm no lawyer either, but I am pretty sure the GPL would have required > Chromium to be released under the GPL as well, instead of its BSD > license (unless all of the contributors had a commercial license to > Qt).
Ah, my misreading -- that page doesn't apply to the "Open Source Edition". I do remember reading about BSD-licensed software needing to make licensing exceptions to link against Qt. (I apologize for my misinformation; I never looked into Qt too closely exactly because of these licensing shenanigans.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
