Re: The KDE Free Qt Foundation (fwd)

On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 12:45:05PM -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Now, to the content: he is correct and you are wrong.

That depends on how you read the licenses. 

> The GPL license is not compatible with the BSD license.  This is a
> long known issue: the reason is that GPL code can not be linked with
> code that is under a more restrictive license (and the BSD license is
> considered to be more restrictive as it includes the "credit should be
> given" clause).

While the BSD license does state that credit should be given, in many,
many other respects the LGPL license is far more restrictive.
"I know you are but what am I?"  :-)

Obviously, I prefer the BSD license for free software, and you prefer
the GPL license.. However, it's not really worth starting *another*
flame war over this, so I will politely bow out and not contribute anymore
to my original flame.. All the BSD vs. GPL license wars in the past have
amounted to zero progress, and have been nothing more than a big waste
of time...


PS. My statement that the original poster look at the conditions where the
Free Qt would become a BSD licensed product still stands... I think that
the circumstance where Troll can no longer produce versions of
Qt would be well matched with the BSD license since it would allow (essentially)
another "Troll" to emerge.. Just my $.02..

> Miguel.

Mark Mayo
Computing Research Lab for the Environment
  University degrees are a bit like adultery: you may not want to 
  get involved with that sort of thing, but you don't want to be 
  thought incapable.      -Sir Peter Imbert

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]