Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the source
code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they could not
legally distribute a compiled binary that included copyrightable parts of
GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries under the GPL.
I don't agree with some points in this.
The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The
very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a
derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when
distributed, whether in source form or compiled form.
Please point out the flaw in this reasoning. Thank you.
Shriramana Sharma.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
