12.08.2016, 07:32, "Alexander Nassian" <[email protected]>: > Interesting enough that Qt itself switched the OSS license to v3 ...
Don't mix up changing license of your project to more restrictive with using restrictively licensed 3rd party libraries. > >> Am 11.08.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>: >> >> On quinta-feira, 11 de agosto de 2016 19:50:35 PDT Alexander Nassian wrote: >>>> And they're LGPLv2. The v3 clauses cause lots of companies to run away. >>> >>> Really? v3 just clarifies some of the implications of v2 in a more suitable >>> way for lawyers. Many people that run away don't know how to get their >>> products safe with the requirement to let the user on the system. But it's >>> possible and no real reason against v3. >> >> The "v3" is hardly "just clarifies" over the v2. It adds at least two extra >> provisions: >> * the patent grant >> * the "installation instructions" clause >> >> Regardless of whether the reasons why companies run away is valid or not, >> the >> fact is that they do. I submit Evidence A: Apple stopped updating GCC when >> it >> went GPLv3 in version 4.3 and instead started their own compiler. >> >> So it's unimportant whether the reasons are valid. It's important that we >> understand the consequences if we do choose to accept an LGPLv3 dependency. >> >> -- >> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com >> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
