> 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
I recommend you viewing the Video with Dr. Till Jäger which is published on the Qt website - he also supports the view that mostly the same requirements exist (at least in european law) with 2.1 based on the license's spirit and wording: https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing-terms/ > > 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. Apple's license strategy is not really an evidence. Apple was never a big fan of any kind of GPL licensed software. Which is understandable due to the BSD and more Unixishes nature of OS X. The license was surely one of the reasons for LLVM/Clang, but definetly not the only one. > > 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. > Sure. That's imprtant. Sorry if some people see me overtaking this thread with offtopic, but I just wanted to state my sight on this issue that came up as part of this thread. Best regards and have a nice weekend! Alexander Nassian _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
