2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-k...>:
> 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:
No. What it means is, because software developed is a derivative work
(if it were not, we would not have needed this exception) we are
easing the derivative work requirement. GPL says derivative works
should be GPL and we give you some more choices, it could be any of
the listed Free Software license.
Licensing is a legal topic and not everyone understands the nuances.
Between all this confusion comes only to those who write code with QT
and not for just using it.
Its not rubbish, you can't release your code in any license other than
those listed. So it is still copyleft like GPL, but much looser
(giving you a lot more options for your license, but still requoring
it to be foss).
1. You write code under GPL - no confusion, you can link to QT
2. You write your code under any of the listed FOSS licenses - again
no confusion you can link to QT
2. You want to keep your code proprietary - no confusion you pay QT
for a proprietary license.
The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary.