On 18/04/12 20:19, Till Oliver Knoll wrote: > > > Am 18.04.2012 um 15:38 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras<rea...@gmail.com>: > >> ... What I find problematic is transforming said code from open to >> closed source, thus allowing others to modify it without giving back the >> modifications. > > As has been mentioned already in this thread it is impractical to develop bug > fixes (features maybe) in the commercial version - /paid/ by a customer who > wants that fixed/implemented - and /not/ merging them back into the "main > stream" (open source). > > So in my opinion this is a give-and-take situation: the "closed/commercial > world gets changes "for no money" from the "open world" (and yes, with all > the contractual fine print and the risk to transmogrify these changes into a > locked box). In practise however the "closed development" will flow back into > the "open world" sooner or later, for practical reasons outlined above. And > hey: also for "no money" :) > > Win-win, no?
You are not required to merge them back. You are only required to make them public so that other, if they so wish, can try to merge them. Or not merge them but use them for themselves. So that argument is moot. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
