Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:42:19 +1000 Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > >> Holger Freyther wrote: >>> On Wednesday 23 July 2008 01:38:35 Lorn Potter wrote: >>> >>>>> i never mentioned commercial apps nor money. >>>> Yes you did. "pay for a license' implies both money and you needing a >>>> commercial license, which implies you intend on producing closed source >>>> applications. >>> maybe he just wants commercial support? So that someone looks at the >>> patches he sends? >> Neuros uses the GPL license and has a support package. >> >> and we do look at patches you send. > > again - i said nothing of a closed or commercial app and charging for it - is > said that i would HAVE to pay a license fee to get qt under a license OTHER > than GPL so *I* can release my software under a non-GPL infested license (eg > MIT-X11, BSD, etc. etc.). my point being that not all type of open are the > same > - and people prefer different levels of freedom and openness. i prefer to give > my users more freedom of choice than you give yours. thuds my choice would > always be to not use qt as it would restrict my freedoms to only be the kind > of > freedom you want, and in turn restrict my users too. >
By releasing something that allows closed source linking, you are restricting your users rights to recompile all the software. How is that giving your users more rights? If you don't like free software, why the heck are you developing for a 'free your phone' phone? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
