On 18/04/12 21:41, Quim Gil wrote: > Hi, first just making sure you are aware of qt-project.org/legal.html > > Most of the content of this thread is explained there, although perhaps > less poetically or straightforward. > > On 04/18/2012 11:01 AM, ext Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> So that argument is moot. > > The core argument is: > > 1. Qt has dual licensing, open and commercial.
I think you mean open and closed/proprietary, because "open" does not imply non-commercial. > 2. Qt Commercial = Qt (from qt-project.org) + more non-OSS addons + more > platforms supported Yes, but contribution does not happen for the non-OSS addons. Contributions go to qt-project, and since it's LGPL, it should be able to be used with the non-OSS addons. > 3. Everybody here agrees that Qt as in qt-project.org and Qt as in Qt > Commercial need to be the same, otherwise it's a mess. This is why the > Qt Project has that contribution agreement, and this is why Digia > (maintainer of Qt Commercial) dedicates resources upstreaming their > patches and being a key player in the Qt releases at qt-project.org. I don't see why the LGPL can't be used for the commercially supported version. > This game is good enough to have organizations as diverse as KDE or RIM > to agree on it. But if it's not good for you that's fine, you are not > forced to sign it and still you have many options to contributoe to the > Qt Project. Having open code closed down at will is not my cup of tea. > May I ask, what is the contribution you have in mind? Reporting of the desktop environment the application runs in to the application, for supporting different interface guidelines (like instant-apply preferences in Gnome and other DEs vs "OK/Apply/Cancel" buttons on KDE.) _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
