On 2016-03-11 14:33, Phil Thompson wrote:
On 11 Mar 2016, at 1:09 pm, Marc Gronle
> we were also very suprised to hear about that change in the licensing
> without any notification in the release messages on your website.
> Without the mail from Alan we would propably never have realized this
> important change. Our software is LGPL licensed and would also not be
> able to link against new versions of QScintilla. We would also really
> appreciate if any kind of exception allowing this could be re-introduced.
Apologies for not making it more clear.
Unlike the other licenses there is no problem with you linking a pure
GPL QScintilla with your LGPL code. It's up to you whether you want to
accept the additional committments that that implies.
Qt is moving to either GPL & commercial or LGPL & commercial depending
on the nature of the product and I want to have things similarly
simple. There is an argument (especially given the previous
exceptions) that QScintilla should be aligned with Qt (and therefore
be LGPL) rather than, say, QtCharts. I will give that serious
consideration.
Thanks Phil. LGPL & Commercial would certainly be my preference too.
Alan
_______________________________________________
QScintilla mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/qscintilla
