Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarific ation from the FAQ --

[jtd]

On Friday 02 January 2009 12:59, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
 On Friday 02 Jan 2009 11:56:51 am jtd wrote:
  1) does the term commercial appear in the licence

 no

  2) does the licence refer to notice.txt

 no


God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use 
it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a 
completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL. 

-- 
Rgds
JTD
-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarific ation from the FAQ --

[jtd]

On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

 according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL
 instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for
 proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free
 software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying
 the best of both worlds - a great con.

Only some people. Like trolltech and Nokia who owned all the code 
before releasing it GPL.
I am not aware of the status of external contributions though. Do 
trolltech require assignment of copyrights? 

-- 
Rgds
JTD
-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers