On Tuesday 21 July 2015 22:26:17 Ansel Sermersheim wrote: > As to your question about relicensing, can you please elaborate on what > this is referring to? As long as Qt is covered by the current license, > we can not relicense CopperSpice since we are bound by the terms of the > licenses under which we forked the code.
You own the copyright to those parts which you added. Come GPL4, you might conceivably want to use that license. Assuming TQC releases its code under GPL4, too, which it can, that leaves your own original work. Assuming it's just you and Barbara, you won't have problems. But if you have 200 contributors, half of which vanished from the face of the earth after a few months of being active, you will have a harder time to track every contributor down and get approval for the relicensing from each of them. It's why many Free Software projects require some form of copyright assignment, incl. the Godfather of GPL projects, GNU. You seem to say that Copperspice is in some sense more free than Qt, because of the missing CLA, but you may have locked yourself into a set of licenses forever, like the Linux kernel did (and it's anyone's guess whether Linus is *actually* happy with the GPL v2 and being stuck with it forever, or whether dropping the "or later" clause secretly gnaws at his conscience, after all he also publicly condemns C++ and then goes to write his diving app in Qt/C++ :) IANAL, yadda, yadda, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development