[Development] Updating the licence policy for Qt Project

[Thiago Macieira]

On Wednesday 27 August 2014 18:25:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > Well, there are still very good reasons to use LGPLv2.1,
> 
> which are (within the scope of qt-project)?

When we want a library to be used despite the "freeloader" issue. The whole 
reason why the LGPL exists in the first place is to allow use of high-quality, 
open source libraries in contexts where the full freedoms and requirements of 
the GPL (or, in our case, LGPLv3) cannot be met.

There may be new modules like that in the future.

> > so I won't pass judgement here. Let's leave this to the author to
> > decide.
> 
> correct, but i was suggesting stating preferences, not limiting the
> options.

I only agree if we state the preference equally for the first two options.

> > Besides, applications from the long history of Qt are not using these
> > modules yet because they don't exist. We're not removing any freedom of
> > theirs.
> the point is that they are limited in their expansion of their qt usage,
> which would be a natural development in many cases.
> so if one follows this argumentation, this licensing choice should be
> discouraged unless it is imposed by 3rd-party licensing compatibility.

Agreed, which is why I also agree in discouraging the LGPLv3 case. But 
sometimes, we are not given an option.

So can I suggest we allow the author to choose freely between the first two 
options and we can exceptionally accept the third (LGPLv3-only) option, given 
proper argumentation?

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center