On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link: > > a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." > vs. > b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, there > would be problems." > > Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about > Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to > say > to that. But going by the information on their site, they are deliberately > keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO. Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either find me a potential problem in the following scenario <begin> I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this code, I ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to hold back the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to charge for my code, in which case the source needs to be given away too. <end> OR: <begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end> Maybe, this will help clarify better... Best wishes, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
