Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:23:18 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: QPL license question Message-ID: <20000821082318.B2341@physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <20000820214314.H42247@bonsai.hiwaay.net>; from sprice@hiwaay.net on Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:43:14PM -0500 References: <20000820210627.F42247@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000821075814.A2262@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000820214314.H42247@bonsai.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Price said on Aug 20, 2000 at 21:43:14: > > That's what I surmised. One more question if I may. Let's suppose > I have an application that links against a set of proprietary libraries > and libqt. I need to release the source for the 'controller' app under > the QPL, but does it infect the proprietary source and require me to > release the code to it as well? I have no idea. IANAL... I guess it would be safer not to do this. The GPL does make an exception for proprietary libraries which are a standard part of an operating system, and my guess is Qt should allow it too since it is used on commercial unix systems. I think they would not want you to use any other kind of proprietary library, since otherwise people could simply put all their interesting stuff in a closed-source library and link it with a very minimal open source program... but I don't know what the legal position here is. Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000821082318.B2341>