Adam J. Richter wrote:
>
> > As I understand it any license apart from the GPL is incompatible with
> >the GPL.
>
> No. There are many GPL compatible conditions. Any license the always
> grants at least the GPL's permissions is GPL compatible. Here are
> some examples:
>
> 1. "This work is public domain."
>
> 2. The new FreeBSD copying conditions (the one without the
> advertisting restriction).
>
> 3. The LGPL
>
> The problem with the QPL is that it attempts adds additional restrictions
> beyond the GPL. For example, you have to also give Qt the right to
> make proprietary derivative works, and the way in which modifications
> can be distributed is also more restricted.
>
> I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For legal advice,
> consult a lawyer.
I don't care too much if it's compatible with GPL or not. If Debian and
RH start to include Qt in their main distribution because they think the
license fits their rules (RH already stated something like that afaik
and
with my DebianDeveloperEyes[tm] I would say it fits there too) and after
that for every software using Qt the famous part of the OS clause of GPL
fits, not?
Greetings, Stephan
--
As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
Microsoft have nothing to worry about.
By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online
