From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 3 01:16:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233DD16A4CF for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:16:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpq2.home.nl (smtpq2.home.nl [213.51.128.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8126443D6E for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:16:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.128.132] (port=56947 helo=smtp1.home.nl) by smtpq2.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DSm1x-0001wy-Na for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 03 May 2005 03:16:57 +0200 Received: from cp464173-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([84.27.215.228]:56939 helo=desktop.homenet) by smtp1.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DSm1w-0000nw-DM for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 03 May 2005 03:16:56 +0200 From: Danny Pansters To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 03:16:17 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 X-Face: "0Qv=,p:+]LvuqrtS4U\z3k"qN=.1]@=?utf-8?q?=258=3F=3BPoab=23v=27F=7E=0A=09!Wm=5Fe-=24=7EL=5D=3B?=>[c*L^Qoladj)x@mH}Bqz"vLO?Zdl}[@V@=?utf-8?q?U=3Fx3=23lI=3A=0A=09=24DN=7E!Hr?=@K`-mNv"zXm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505030316.17388.danny@ricin.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: QPL vs GPL for QT and derivatives X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 01:16:59 -0000 Hi all, This is not meant to induce flames, please just don't answer to any flamish comments. I'm just really wondering about this. QT and derivs have either the GPL (2) or QPL license but we have and use the GPL one. First question: do they differ in distribution, eg x11-gpl versus the qpl version? I never tried but I'm sure someone did/knows/asked. Second question: if they are the same source wise, the QPL seems a lot more BSD-like: it basically says: can use if not commercial without disclosing source, should one want to. In essence any BSD app under QT should live happily under that, the burden is on the person who would want to use that code next _and_ it could be GPL'ed at any time if she wants to, with the original being left QPL'ed which for us basically means BSD'ed as long as not commercial (and it's not like the fees will starve you if you want them). Third: if they are not the same source wise, does anyone have any idea if it's a huge leap and perhaps (implied) a regression, in that case it's likely out of the question for practical reasons alone. Thus I'm wondering, are there technical problems or philosophical ones with using the QPL rather than GPL with qt? Perhaps it just never came up, or people don't find it important. I personally think the QPL is rather fair and generous. From a BSDL standpoint it may be preferred over GPL2 (If GPL3 gets as bad as some fear it will never be widespread adapted, we shouldn't worry about GPL3 IMHO, and neither will it be so bad). What are your opinions/added knowledge or facts or thoughts on this? Some may find it nitpicking, and perhaps it is, but I'd still like to hear some opinions on this anyhow. I could get the bare info by (quite a long) google probably but I'm also interested in hearing opinions. This is an opinionated subject anyway, I know. Thanks, Dan