On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > [1] The KDE team produces a lot of them like kppp, kisdn, kheise etc. > I don't believe that these is the answer as long as Qt is non-free > but it's a way in the right direction.
My personal hesitation with Qt has been overcome finally knowing that Troll Tech wouldn't pull an Open Group stunt on us, but you are right in that it would be nicer if the license were OpenSource. Would it be possible for a sort of dual license to be considered OpenSource? Something that allowed free creation of OpenSource software (commercial or not) but proprietary software required commercial licensing for it? This sounds SO CLOSE to what the license does now, the only real difference is focusing on whether or not the developer can make a profit doing what they do (RedHat for example whose development has always been GPL even though they make $$ doing it..) The GPL even has that restriction, though it's more limited to RMS' vision of the Perfect License and not all software that is Free. I think it's possible at least the Qt people might actually agree, considering. And they would suddenly have a LOT more Qt users out there (which would mean more Qt developers) if things like KDE didn't have to go in to contrib.
pgp0btd8Fz1oC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
