“could the author ask the module to be also available under GPLv2?”
Yes, but since the preference is to have the v3 for new items, there probably
would be some discussion and planning what would be the best approach.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Benjamin TERRIER <b.terr...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 17 August 2019 at 12.18
To: Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io>, qt qt <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Le ven. 16 août 2019 à 08:41, Tuukka Turunen
<tuukka.turu...@qt.io<mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> a écrit :
I do agree that we should clarify this, especially the GPLv2 and GPLv3 part is
not clearly explained at qt.io<http://qt.io> websites. The approach is to use
the v3 of both LGPL and GPL for new things, but to keep GPLv2 option for
Essentials and those Add-ons that existed in December 2015, see clause 4.4 and
4.6 in https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/Software_License_Agreement_2015.pdf
Thank you for claryfing that.
I have one last question. As Thiago said that it is up to the module author do
choose the license, would a module author be able to choose only between GPLv3
and LGPLv3? Or could the author ask the module to be also available under GPLv2?
Br,
Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
