Quoting Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 2:59 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 2:41 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think in the real world, Kitware can distribute QtDialog under
CMake's license, and Linux distro gatekeepers won't object.
I would suggest making clear reference to the exception in the
QtDialog source code.  So that (1) some Linux distro ninny doesn't
come along later and erroneously "discover that CMake source is in
non-compliance," and (2) third parties are aware of the additional
obligations they'll have to fulfill if they want to reuse the QtDialog
code.

On second thought, before providing such a notice, it's best to get
CMake into that list of license exceptions.
http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception  Otherwise, CMake would
be calling attention to a license condition that, pedantically

What we plan to do is use a pure BSD license, and remove the extra line
that is currently in the CMake license.  That way there is no trouble.
With the qt exception, you can link all you want, you just can not
develop.

But the same applies to both: changes not push upstream and changes that get pushed upstream. Since the original is BSD licensed and I add e.g. new functionality to it, I either: - need a commercial license to distribute the result as BSD licensed again , or
 - have to distribute the result as GPL licensed.

Is the latter actually possible? Not from my understanding of this.
So I am allowed to link against the GPL version of Qt but I cannot modify it and distribute the result. Since the DFSG was mentioned already: it would go to non-free on Debian, I guess. If the above is true, what about dual-licensing it? A modified version could then distributed GPL licensed and others can choose BSD license for unmodified versions.

HS

PS: no, I don't actually care for the GPL but I care about cmake staying in Debian main.


_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Reply via email to