| |||||||||||||
Similar in spirit?Similar in spirit?Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:38 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Similar in spirit? by proski Parent article: Similar in spirit?
you contradict yourself
you say exisitng code will stay GPLv2, but that there may be a QT under GPLv3
why would they change from GPLv2 to GPLv3?
(Log in to post comments)
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:48 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Because it's way better Trolltech. Really. Think about it: Qt is used in closed boxes. A lot. But right now you can (in theory) take GPL version and lock it down with DRM. GPLv3 is perfect for dual-licensing scheme! Community projects rarely change the license (because it's hard). Company-owned projects are toally different kettle of fish. If IBM will "approve" patent changes (who's approval will you trust in regard to patents clause if not IBM?) then I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of software licensed under GPL, not just Qt.
Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:57 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] That's a fascinating observation that I hadn't really thought about before, but it's clearly true: by banning the application of GPLv3 software in protected applications, the FSF is making dual-licensing more attractive, because the alternative licenses do allow such use.
|
|||||||||||||