Hi, On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 14:35, Ilulu <il...@gmx.net> wrote: > [snip] > (10a) For example, a fully decentralised development model, where no > single commercial entity exercises control over what is accepted into > the project’s code base, should be taken as an indication that the > product has been developed in a non-commercial setting. On the other > hand, where free and open source software is developed by a single > organisation or an asymmetric community, where a single organisation is > generating revenues from related use in business relationships, this > should be considered to be a commercial activity. Similarly, where the > main contributors to free and open-source projects are developers > employed by commercial entities and when such developers or the employer > can exercise control as to which modifications are accepted in the code > base, the project should generally be considered to be of a commercial > nature.
So basically this means Qt will be considered a commercial product _even_ if it's totally open source (at least in the way we ship it in Debian). Even more, it can even be argued that if we ship it _and_ I get to patch it (we do), then I might be responsible for it, which to me makes no sense at all.
