16.08.2012, 01:21, "Sascha Cunz" <sascha...@babbelbox.org>: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 08:06:08 AM Atlant Schmidt wrote: >> Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned by several >> other folks, the fact that a given piece of software is >> licensed under the terms of the (L)GPL is a huge factor >> arguing against its use in several industries. The more- >> open licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.) are free from the large >> burdens that (L)GPL imposes for disclosure, upgrade- >> ability, extensive ongoing code analysis, and the like. > > Amusingly, you seem here to try to prove against your own initial statement: > IF Nokia had relicensed Qt under a BSD, MIT, PD or any similar Do-What-The- > Fuck-You-Want-To-License [1], THEN they would really have _destroyed_ the > monetary value of Qt beyond repair.
That's not entirely true: while nobody would be interested in commercial license, demand on training and certification would rise because of instant market expansion. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
