> > But that is NOT the case I am talking about here. QT is a library and > was licensed under the GPL (actually dual licensed -- your exception clause, > you could pay for a less restrictive license). >
QT is now available under the terms of the GPL, and now even the LGPL. That was not always the case. QT was originally ( before the GPL / QPL ), released under a propriatory licence. > > > The case I am talking about here is linking non-GPL code with GPL code. > In that case the key paragraph in the GPL license is this one: > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you > distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based > on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of > this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the > entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. > > Now in the case of a program that uses QT this para does not apply, so the > whole ends up licensed GPL. Happily, Nokia recently changed the license on > QT to LGPL. > I was refering to the case of before QT was available under the GPL. It also has been well established that if you link to GPL libraries, and redistribute your product, you must licence your product under the terms of the GPL. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Python Ireland" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/pythonireland?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
