On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:34:37AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > >>further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is, > > > > Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the Trolltech > > annotation, altough it has not yet been endorsed officially by the ocaml > > authors : > > > > This is a license designed for libraries, therefore we must also talk > > about > > application programs or other libraries (components) that are linked with > > the software, as these include portions of Qt when in binary form. Of > > course, given the term "link", there is no differentiation between static > > and dynamic linking. > > > > In essence this clause says that you may develop programs that link with > > Qt > > provided that you develop Open Source software. > > The problem with this annotation is that the last sentence is completely > false. It is not sufficient for the software you link to a QPLed work > to be Open Source; it must also be provided to the original author. One
How is this relevant to the problem we are discussing here ? We are speaking of the distinction between linked and modified software, please stay on track. > cannot write an Open Source program, distribute it within an > organization, or to a small group of people, and thereby satisfy the > QPL; the program must also be distributed to the author on request. Yes, and we already discussed this, and are disucssing it. But until we agree that what the difference is between works affected by QPL 6 and those affected by QPL 3, there is not really a sense to bash on the annotation for its inexactness. And i agree it is misleading, still it is the annotation for the QPL 6 header, there is a separate annotation, which i find a bit weak though, for QPL 6c : This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we can release the code to the public. > If the QPL truly just required works linking to the QPLed work to be > Open Source, then that clause would be perfectly acceptable. Ok, but this was not what we were discussing in this subthread. Friendly, Sven Luther
