[Development] New company name for Qt part of Digia and unified web site

[André Somers]

> Op 17 sep. 2014 om 18:05 heeft Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
>> Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the 
>> source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very misleading there. 
> 
>> They just don't have the right to publish closed source software based 
>> on those modified sources without releasing those modifications to their 
>> users (well, sort off. It is of course a bit more involved than that.)
> 
> That last sentence is true, but unrelated to making modifications. Every user 
> of Qt under the LGPL must publish the version of Qt they used, REGARDLESS of 
> whether they modified it or not. They have to publish it on their own servers.
> 
> Pointing to qt-project.org or qt.io servers is not enough to fulfil the 
> requirements of the licence. The licence requires that the distributor of the 
> software (v2) or the "conveyor" of the software (v3) also offer the source of 
> the library. It's the responsibility of that person and you cannot pass it 
> along to someone else.
> 

Still not quite true, and besides the point too. We were talking about if the statement on Qt.io is true. It is not. I was not suggesting an alternative. Also note that there is no requirement to offer Qt on your own server. There are different ways to fulfill the requirement from the license, that is, _if_ somebody requests the sources at all to begin with. If we were to decide to send the customer that requests the Qt sources a DVD that contains them, that would be legal as far as I understand the license. The again, IANAL, and neither are you...

André