Talk:Q Public License
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
QPL is not copyleft. This mistake is repeated on the copyleft page (which I'm fixing right now). Check the FSF license list to confirm such issues. Markvs 19:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Can anyone qualified for it confirm this, and hopefully correct this article? Haakon 14:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article says "The GPL states that it must always continue to be under that license." which is not correct at all, if I understand correctly. If you release a program under the GPL, and you own all the copyright for that program, you can release a new version later under a different license. I think what has probably been meant is that if you release GPL software, you cannot retract it. Haakon 14:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] KDE's choice
- KDE immediately chose the GPL.
I don't think that's accurate. If it were, then everything in KDE which links to Qt (i.e., basically everything in KDE) would have to be under the GPL, but some parts of KDE are under the LGPL (khtml, for example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.132.18.248 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 January 2006.
[edit] Obfuscation
"The main difference between GPL and QPL is that QPL forces the software developer to provide the source code, if in any way it links with QPL'd code (a library for example), even if the QPL'd code is not distributed with the software developer's code. This was the main reason QPL was used for Qt instead of the GPL. This meant that any code that uses (i.e links with) Qt under the QPL license must distribute in the QPL license and provide the source code."
I can't make heads or tails out of that paragraph. Can someone rewrite it in more user-friendly terms? 204.145.242.1 22:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] commons
so can we post files to the commons under the QPL or not? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
