On Nov 21, 2007 10:27 AM, Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > > 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.
Kitware has fulfilled the licensing and corporate governance requirements of the Qt GPL Exception. http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception Kitware can take patches from anyone they like, as long as the license is assigned to Kitware. If you want to link to Qt libraries, or redistribute stuff that is linked with Qt libraries, you can: - obtain a commercial Qt license - use the open source version of Qt and ship your code as GPL - fulfill the licensing and corporate governance requirements of the Qt GPL Exception, as Kitware has done You've got options. If you don't like those options, then don't use Qt. > Since the DFSG was mentioned already: it would go to non-free on > Debian, I guess. These requirements are fully compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines as far as I can tell. Specifically: Kitware is licensing under the Qt GPL Exception. You are perfectly capable of fulfilling the Qt GPL Exception yourself, i.e. you have the same rights as Kitware does, and so would anyone you ship to. Nothing about the Qt GPL Exception conflicts with DFSG policy, i.e. the field of endeavor is not restricted. In fact, the Exception resonates with a number of Free Software ideas about how companies should conduct themselves. > If the above is true, what about dual-licensing it? Kitware has no need to do this. > A modified version > could then distributed GPL licensed and others can choose BSD license > for unmodified versions. If *you* need to do this, just grab CMake in its entirety and slap a GPL on top of it. Nothing stopping you. CMake's license is a hybrid of BSD and zlib/libpng. Both are GPL-compatible licenses. > PS: no, I don't actually care for the GPL but I care about cmake > staying in Debian main. It's solved. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake