Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:40 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest <interest@qt-project.org>: > > Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto: > > Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not > > breaking the contract with Frob, we would have to stipulate our > > contract with G not only that they themselves stick with paid-support > > Frob tools, but that they in turn must stipulate the same in their > > contracts with any H type subcontractors. > > > > And you think this will encourage people to pick commercial Qt? > > Without such a clause, you could easily incorporate a wholly owned > subsidiary, make it do all the development as "contractors" using Open > Source Qt, get the finished product back, slap it under Commercial Qt > and enjoy the benefits of the commercial terms without having paid for > it during the development. That's what the clause is protecting against.
Sure, I understand what it's protecting against. With all the confusion in the thread, I don't think anyone is confused about that. I just think it's an absurd protection. Elvis > > My 2 c, > -- > Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer > KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company > Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com > KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
