Mark Hymers wrote: > A wdiff between this and the VTK license shows that just the names of > the contributors have been changed (as you'd expect). It appears to be > a modified BSD license (i.e. without advertising clause) with one extra > clause: > > * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not > be > misrepresented as being the original software. > > My question is about linking this against GPL code (in this case, QT). > I think this is probably ok but my only point of reference for this is > that the zlib license (which the FSF describe as being GPL compatible - > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) contains the following > clause: > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must > not be misrepresented as being the original software. > > Basically, I just want to check before sorting out the remaining small > issues with upstream and continuing with the package that the consensus > of opinion here is that this is all ok and correct.
Yes, that clause is fine and GPL compatible. -- This space intentionally left blank.
