Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt 240
Funkmaster F writes "At the KDE Developer Conference today, Trolltech CEO Havaard Nord announced that its Qt application development toolkit will be released under GPL 3. 'Here at the KDE release event, Nord's announcement was met with applause. Like Trolltech's initial decision to move from its own QPL license to the GPL, this announcement and the company's more recent decision to adopt the GPL for all platforms rather than just Linux, demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to openness.'"
Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that GPLv3 was designed to address a lot of problems such as Tivoization, but in following the debate on the Debian-Legal mailing list, I'm not completely comfortable with choosing version three.
Trying to actually read the whole license to decide for myself just makes my head spin.
Note: there is no software to download yet; there won't be any until the alpha test version is ready.
Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (Score:3, Interesting)
Just out of interest, what makes you prefer firefox? I switched to konqueror as my primary browser nearly two years ago and haven't looked back - so much faster and "cleaner"-looking.
Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too (Score:1, Interesting)
Challenges for you:
(1) Name one real-world instance where this has happened and unreasonable demands have resulted.
(2) This can only happen if the "widget" forms a major part of the "new project". See the definition of "derivative work". A work is a derivative work, under copyright law, only if a later work includes as a major part an earlier copyrighted work. So then, this scenario can only happen if: (a) the widget is included in the new project, and (b) the widget forms a major part of the new project. Please explain then how it is in any way unfair that an original author should demand some money if his/her work is to (a) be included in a new proprietary project, and (b) forms a major part of that project.
(3) Please explain exactly how "the GPL can totally be used against the causes of freedom". The widget was originally released under terms where anyone can use it (as in run the widget's code). How is it not a violation of those terms for someone to re-release it "hidden" as the major piece in a newer product, not pay the original author his fair dues, yet charge the end-user public for the use of the new product? How is doing this not a total "rip-off"?