On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote:
> 2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-k...>:
> > this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to
> > contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel
> > me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release
> > it under the GPL only??
>
> They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same
> respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't
> use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux
> kernel. So how QT is different here?

anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software
developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT
license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT
as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here:

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html

and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)

So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible
public by misusing the term GPL.

--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers