From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 29 12:23:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 14DB416A41C for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:23:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D889C43D1D for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:23:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com) Received: from frontend3.messagingengine.com (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC86DCB1000 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:23:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Sasl-enc: 19rXOWwg1vGVYLKiJTK5JkT4Uhq8vQWV1swTB0diwcsT 1120047827 Received: from gumby.localdomain (dsl-80-41-78-187.access.as9105.com [80.41.78.187]) by frontend3.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE081E9 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:23:47 -0400 (EDT) From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:23:43 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200506291330.56499.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <200506291330.56499.danny@ricin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506291323.44528.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:23:49 -0000 On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:30, Danny Pansters wrote: > Folks, > > I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page > > (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) > > specifically states several times that if using the free version one is > required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a > requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The > former licensing amounted to "abide to the GPL or QPL" as is normal for a > GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if > anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a > derivative). I don't see what you are getting at. As I read it, they give an informal informational precis of what the GPL is, and then say: "This is because the Open Source versions of our software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL license".