-- repying below to -- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 09:54 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Qt as a replacement for VCL
On 01/20/2015 07:05 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > [ ... ] > Indeed, thanks. But let me get this straight. The Qt license, which > for us would be LGPL, is not an obstacle? (I know you described a > possible usage that did not seem to transgress license. But we should > need to be rather careful here.) > > thanks louis The QT license info is here: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licensing.html#licenses-used-in-qt Quite a collection! Of these, for the QT core, I believe the BSD-style are acceptable to the ASF but, the MIT -- not! :( So...depending on what we used, we'd need to discuss with Apache Legal. <orcmid> Those are licenses of some dependencies within QT, not the license for QT itself. That is sort of like a NOTICE file for QT. And the MIT license is equivalent to a BSD license. That is not the problem. It is listed as MIT/X11 at <http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html>. It is a good time to look at what that page says about GNU LGPL too. It is also important to recognize that the LGPL includes the GPL by reference and while it makes some GPL exceptions, the rest of the GPL is there. This is often overlooked. </orcmid> [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
