On Tuesday, 20 de December de 2011 15.22.13, David Faure wrote: > On Tuesday 20 December 2011 11:18:21 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > > To some extent Linux distributions have always done that as well, and I > > still remember something called qt-copy in KDEŠ ;-) > > I see no relation at all. qt-copy was for the convenience of kde developers, > definitely not for anyone else to build upon. > And, there was nobody selling support for it, either. > > And, there was a #define to distinguish it from upstream qt, allowing ifdefs > if necessary.
That's still a "vendor branch". Anything that is not the pristine releases the
Qt Project makes is a vendor branch. If you make the sources available for
others, you should make it clear that the sources are modified. The GPL and
LGPL require that anyway.
The extent of the "making it clear" of course depends on how well known your
branch is, how many changes and how likely it is for people to use them.
Adding a patch or two to fix bugs, probably doesn't need much. Putting on an
SCM server where hundreds or thousands of people will use, required READMEs,
#defines, etc. Selling commercial support and licenses, more so -- even the
logos are changed.
Linux distributions patching Qt should also do that, but then again, they
patch all their software, so it's not like we wouldn't know.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
