QPL vs GPL for QT and derivatives

Danny Pansters danny at ricin.com
Mon May 2 18:16:59 PDT 2005


Hi all,

This is not meant to induce flames, please just don't answer to any flamish 
comments. I'm just really wondering about this.

QT and derivs have either the GPL (2) or QPL license but we have and use the 
GPL one.

First question: do they differ in distribution, eg x11-gpl versus the qpl 
version? I never tried but I'm sure someone did/knows/asked.

Second question: if they are the same source wise, the QPL seems a lot more 
BSD-like: it basically says: can use if not commercial without disclosing 
source, should one want to. In essence any BSD app under QT should live 
happily under that, the burden is on the person who would want to use that 
code next _and_ it could be GPL'ed at any time if she wants to, with the 
original being left QPL'ed which for us basically means BSD'ed as long as not 
commercial (and it's not like the fees will starve you if you want them).

Third: if they are not the same source wise, does anyone have any idea if it's 
a huge leap and perhaps (implied) a regression, in that case it's likely out 
of the question for practical reasons alone.

Thus I'm wondering, are there technical problems or philosophical ones with 
using the QPL rather than GPL with qt? Perhaps it just never came up, or 
people don't find it important. I personally think the QPL is rather fair and 
generous. From a BSDL standpoint it may be preferred over GPL2 (If GPL3 gets 
as bad as some fear it will never be widespread adapted, we shouldn't worry 
about GPL3 IMHO, and neither will it be so bad). What are your opinions/added 
knowledge or facts or thoughts on this?

Some may find it nitpicking, and perhaps it is, but I'd still like to hear 
some opinions on this anyhow. I could get the bare info by (quite a long) 
google probably but I'm also interested in hearing opinions. This is an 
opinionated subject anyway, I know. 

Thanks,

Dan


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list