Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order > to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be > applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their > patch, they will be able to make sure they can't, regardless of what > any of us do.
Nope. Patches are derived works. Think about what a patch looks like. Even if you come up with a patch format that doesn't include anything of the original, binaries are still derived works, so you can apply controls there. Aside: one thing the QPL drafts lack is a definition for "patch". I'm going on the usual practice for software development, but I think that this omission will need to be rectified unless the patch clause is entirely eliminated [perhaps in favor of a relabelling clause -- I see no reason to call a Qt derivative Qt if the API might be different]. > 5. It'd still be cool to have a license that was compatible with the GPL > if possible. It might not be possible, but if it were possible I was > going to try. I don't think this will be possible with a patch clause. I think this would be possible with a relabelling clause. Ultimately, it's up to Troll Tech. -- Raul
