Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:59:54AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > Peter S Galbraith writes: > > > That is surprising. Should I lobby Qt about changing the license > > > on the license? > > > > Why don't you just email them and ask permission? > > The point of keeping the license document under restrictive copyright > is certainly this: Imagine somebody took the GPL document, changed > some of its terms, and used this polluted GPL in a project under the > name GPL. > > I guess Troll will certainly permit you to use the terms of their > license, as long as you don't call it QPL.
I sent the following to troll 3 days ago and have not heard back yet: | A friend wants to make his software (which is unrelated to Qt) | open-source for inclusion in Debian GNU/Linux, but wants some | protection in case he ever decides to sell a derived-work version | (inclusion of submitted patches). I suggested that he use the | QPL as a template license, changing the license name, the | software name, and putting his own name instead of Troll Tech. | He'd also remove any clause that refer to being a library, since | his software is not a library. | | We just realized that the QPL says: | | THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE version 0.92 | | Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway. | Everyone is permitted to copy and | distribute this license document | | We're allowed to copy it and distribute it, but we'd like | permission to modify it to form a license for other software. | Would you grant this permission? Would you consider changing the | notice on the QPL to allow anyone to modify it as long as they | changed the name of the license (to avoid confusion; you don't | want multiple versions of QPL licences!)
