Interesting enough that Qt itself switched the OSS license to v3 ... > Am 11.08.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > > On quinta-feira, 11 de agosto de 2016 19:50:35 PDT Alexander Nassian wrote: >>> And they're LGPLv2. The v3 clauses cause lots of companies to run away. >> >> Really? v3 just clarifies some of the implications of v2 in a more suitable >> way for lawyers. Many people that run away don't know how to get their >> products safe with the requirement to let the user on the system. But it's >> possible and no real reason against v3. > > The "v3" is hardly "just clarifies" over the v2. It adds at least two extra > provisions: > * the patent grant > * the "installation instructions" clause > > Regardless of whether the reasons why companies run away is valid or not, the > fact is that they do. I submit Evidence A: Apple stopped updating GCC when it > went GPLv3 in version 4.3 and instead started their own compiler. > > So it's unimportant whether the reasons are valid. It's important that we > understand the consequences if we do choose to accept an LGPLv3 dependency. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development