Oh man thanks for reminding me of my strongest point in the 'fork' argument: If we DON'T fork, then OUR contributions contributed-to/'released' by them probably (can someone fill me in here?) won't allow the BSD Clause to ever take effect. I think this might also be amplified by the fact that Nokia releases the "SDK" themselves, while the Qt Project only releases the source/library binaries (and for Qt Creator etc) individually (Is this changing? I recall hearing Digia saying something about a Qt SDK Installer Auto Generator or something <3). Their simple packaging/releasing could be considered a 'significant release'.
Again, not 100% sure, but wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case. Anyone? On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Jason H <scorp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If Nokia is not interested enough to maintain it, why would they be > interested enough to keep it non-BSD? > Its availability as LGPL as you point out, enable significant deployment > of Qt without the need for it to be BSD. > I'm not sure if Nokia really has a direct reason to keep it non-BSD anymore since they sold commercial to Digia (maybe they still get a cut though? Digia: do you outright own Qt Commercial?)... but Microsoft will pressure Nokia into keeping it non-BSD regardless. Should Microsoft buy Nokia, they wouldn't want it to be BSD'd either, for obvious reasons (more permissive license = attracts more developers = less .Net developers = less vendor lock-in = less money in their pocket). d3fault
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
