On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:55:34PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I believe we should not state a preference. The author of the module
> requesting the Git repositories should simply declare what they want.
>
most people have no strong opinions on that matter (and some not even the
necessary und
On 01/09/14 08:55, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Monday 01 September 2014 06:38:16 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> In terms of preference I think we should state that the license has to
>> include LGPLv3/commercial. It should include GPLv2 if this doesn’t
>> conflict with some other license used (ie. Apache
On Monday 01 September 2014 06:38:16 Knoll Lars wrote:
> In terms of preference I think we should state that the license has to
> include LGPLv3/commercial. It should include GPLv2 if this doesn’t
> conflict with some other license used (ie. Apache 2.0).
The question at hand is only whether we sta
On 01/09/14 04:20, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Friday 22 August 2014 07:21:38 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you've seen in my blog post on Wednesday, Digia has decided to add
>
>I believe there are no more remaining objections from this plan. The only
>one
>was Ossi asking about the LGPLv3
On Friday 22 August 2014 07:21:38 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you've seen in my blog post on Wednesday, Digia has decided to add
I believe there are no more remaining objections from this plan. The only one
was Ossi asking about the LGPLv3-only case, which has been addressed.
Ossi also reque
On Wednesday 27 August 2014 18:25:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > Well, there are still very good reasons to use LGPLv2.1,
>
> which are (within the scope of qt-project)?
When we want a library to be used despite the "freeloader" issue. The whole
reason why the LGPL exists in the first place is
On 27 August 2014 14:55, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:21:38AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:of course lgpl2
> still makes sense for add-ons hosted outside qt-project,
> and ones where the author explicitly doesn't want digia to make money
> from selling this module (though in
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:26:15AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 August 2014 15:55:37 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:21:38AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > > 2. New modules that get added to Qt Project from now on can be licensed
> > > either under
> >
> >
On Wednesday 27 August 2014 15:55:37 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:21:38AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > 2. New modules that get added to Qt Project from now on can be licensed
> > either under
>
> for simplicity, i would suggest qt-project states preferences for
>
> speci
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:21:38AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> 2. New modules that get added to Qt Project from now on can be licensed
> either under
>
for simplicity, i would suggest qt-project states preferences for
specific options:
> * LGPLv2.1, LGPLv3 and commercial or
>
of course lgpl2 st
On Friday 22 August 2014 07:21:38 Knoll Lars wrote:
> With this in mind I would like to now formally adopt and embrace these
> changes to how Digia will release Qt as changes to the licensing policy
> within the Qt Project as well. There are basically three changes:
>
> 1. Modules that are part of
On Friday 22 August 2014 12:38:43 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Then the problem with the LGPLv3 is that you must indeed be able to provide
> the users with instruction on how to replace the Qt.
> For that, one must provide the objects files.
> The user will be able to link and deploy on his device usi
On Friday 22 August 2014 10:13:52 Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 22/08/14 11:32, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
> >What makes the iOS App Store different from the others?
>
> Microsoft has added explicit exception clauses for FOSS software in their
> terms. To quote
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wi
On 22/08/14 12:26, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
>On 2014-08-22, at 06:13 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 22/08/14 11:32, "Jake Petroules"
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes the iOS App Store different from the others?
>>
>> Microsoft has added explicit exception clauses for FOSS software in
>>their
On 2014-08-22, at 06:13 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
>
>
> On 22/08/14 11:32, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
>>
>> What makes the iOS App Store different from the others?
>
> Microsoft has added explicit exception clauses for FOSS software in their
> terms. To quote
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib
On 22/08/14 11:32, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
>
>What makes the iOS App Store different from the others?
Microsoft has added explicit exception clauses for FOSS software in their
terms. To quote
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694058.aspx):
"Your license terms must also n
On 2014-08-22, at 05:04 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 22/08/14 09:29, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-22, at 03:21 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The goal here is that adopters of those new Qt modules will have to
>>> abide
>>> by the terms of the LGPLv3, which require the abi
On 22/08/14 09:29, "Jake Petroules" wrote:
>On 2014-08-22, at 03:21 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The goal here is that adopters of those new Qt modules will have to
>>abide
>> by the terms of the LGPLv3, which require the ability to replace the Qt
>> that is on the device on the actual
On 2014-08-22, at 03:21 AM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The goal here is that adopters of those new Qt modules will have to abide
> by the terms of the LGPLv3, which require the ability to replace the Qt
> that is on the device on the actual device, thus creating an open
> ecosystem for applicat
Hi,
As you've seen in my blog post on Wednesday, Digia has decided to add
LGPLv3as a licensing option to all of Qt. This decision has been driven
by several factors as explained in my blog post. Digia could do this
decision due to it's rights to the code through the CLA. Having the option
to add t
20 matches
Mail list logo
