Maybe this wasn't clear, but if possible use a OSI-compliant license, not a modified BSD. This makes it possible to seek funding or respond to technology requests (since I believe an OSI-compliant license can be a pre-condition to engagement, it also gives a sense of authoratative approval which warms some people's hearts). We thought about gaining OSI approval for VTK's original license but eventually just adopted a standard BSD.<br>
Will<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Tarbox, Lawrence <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tarboxl@mir.wustl.edu">tarboxl@mir.wustl.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think the reason that the Qt Software folks (now owned by Nokia) left the GPL option in is for the benefit of some of their partners who were writing GPL code (or dual-licensed GPL/Commercial code) back in the days when Qt Software was TrollTech. Some of those partners have made additions/modifications to Qt, released them under GPL, and do not want to ever release them under LGPL. While technically they could still release their additions/modifications under GPL even though Qt is LGPL (i.e., LGPL allows it), these partners prefer to keep their licensing straight forward, and just say the whole combined mess is GPL. Qt Software is merely saying formally that Qt Software is OK with that model, basically reaffirming their partners' right to continue releasing modified versions of Qt under GPL.<br>
<br>
At least that is the impression that I get.<br>
<br>
I don't think that there is a problem with release our software under a modified BSD license, as long as we are only linking to Qt, and not modifying Qt code directly (i.e., one could switch to a Qt clone, if it existed, or to a modified version of Qt by simply rebuilding against a different link library).<br>
<br>
If we do modify the Qt code itself, then those modifications would have to be released as LGPL. Of course, if we modify Qt itself, I would vote for feeding those modifications back to the Qt community for potential incorporation into a future release of Qt.<br>
<br>
Lawrence<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:ctk-developers-bounces@commontk.org">ctk-developers-bounces@commontk.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ctk-developers-bounces@commontk.org">ctk-developers-bounces@commontk.org</a>] On Behalf Of Marco Viceconti<br>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:44 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:ctk-developers@commontk.org">ctk-developers@commontk.org</a><br>
Subject: [Ctk-developers] Qt licenses model<br>
<br>
I would like to open another discussion thread, parallel to the one we<br>
started on Qt core. Currently Qt is available under two possible open<br>
source licenses: Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 and Qt GNU GPL v. 3.0.<br>
<a href="http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing" target="_blank">http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing</a><br>
<br>
If I understand correctly the code is the same, the access rules are<br>
the same, so I am not sure why one would choose GPL which is more<br>
restrictive than LGPL. Can someone clarify this to me?<br>
<br>
Secondly, having agreed that CTK will be BSD-like, can anyone confirm<br>
me that by using a LGPL library to develop CTK we shall not break the<br>
BSD-like license we plan to adopt?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Marco<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
MARCO VICECONTI, PhD<br>
(<a href="mailto:viceconti@tecno.ior.it">viceconti@tecno.ior.it</a>)<br>
Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica tel. 39-051-6366865<br>
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli fax.<br>
39-051-6366863<br>
via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 - Bologna, Italy<br>
<br>
Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright in the forest of the night,<br>
what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ctk-developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ctk-developers@commontk.org">Ctk-developers@commontk.org</a><br>
<a href="http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers" target="_blank">http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers</a><br>
<br>
</div></div>The material in this message is private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information (PHI). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Ctk-developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ctk-developers@commontk.org">Ctk-developers@commontk.org</a><br>
<a href="http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers" target="_blank">http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>William J. Schroeder, PhD<br>Kitware, Inc.<br>28 Corporate Drive<br>Clifton Park, NY 12065<br><a href="mailto:will.schroeder@kitware.com">will.schroeder@kitware.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.kitware.com">http://www.kitware.com</a><br>(518) 881-4902<br>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>