On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." vs. b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, there would be problems."
Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to say to that. But going by the information on their site, they are deliberately keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO.
Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either find me a potential problem in the following scenario
<begin> I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this code, I ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to hold back the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to charge for my code, in which case the source needs to be given away too. <end>
OR:
<begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end>
Maybe, this will help clarify better...
Best wishes, jaju