2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org>: > anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software > developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT > license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT > as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here:
No. What it means is, because software developed is a derivative work (if it were not, we would not have needed this exception) we are easing the derivative work requirement. GPL says derivative works should be GPL and we give you some more choices, it could be any of the listed Free Software license. > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html > > and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-) > > So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible > public by misusing the term GPL. Licensing is a legal topic and not everyone understands the nuances. Between all this confusion comes only to those who write code with QT and not for just using it. Its not rubbish, you can't release your code in any license other than those listed. So it is still copyleft like GPL, but much looser (giving you a lot more options for your license, but still requoring it to be foss). 1. You write code under GPL - no confusion, you can link to QT 2. You write your code under any of the listed FOSS licenses - again no confusion you can link to QT 2. You want to keep your code proprietary - no confusion you pay QT for a proprietary license. The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary. - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
