[Development] Qt LTS & C++11 plans (CopperSpice)

[André Somers]

Op 27-7-2015 om 03:47 schreef Ansel Sermersheim:
> On 7/26/15 3:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Ansel Sermersheim wrote:
>>> We do in fact have a CLA in place. However, our CLA has one single
>>> purpose. In the event that Qt is re-licensed under a BSD style license
>>> (whether due to the KDE Free Qt Foundation or some other reason), we
>>> will re-license CopperSpice under that same license. That is the only
>>> permission we ask from contributors.
>> That in turn allows everyone else, or even you, to take the code
>> proprietary, so in the case this clause is triggered (which depends on Qt,
>> i.e., neither on you nor on the contributor), it is functionally equivalent
>> to a CLA allowing proprietary relicensing.
> There is one fundamental difference between the CopperSpice and Qt
> licensing situation.
>
> In the (unlikely) event that CopperSpice becomes BSD licensed, it
> becomes BSD licensed for everyone. This means anyone, anywhere, has
> equal rights to make changes and profit from them.
>
> This is very different from one particular entity owning the right to
> profit from an open source project. The argument between GPL-style vs
> BSD-style licenses is as old as the hills, but both licenses do treat
> all contributors equally.
>
> Ansel Sermersheim
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
I am not a lawer and I don't know the wording of the KDE Free Qt 
Foundation agreement, but are you sure that in case that agreement is 
triggered the verion you branched off off will fall under that licence 
and be the one that will be released under BSD? I'm just wondering if 
all versions would retroactively be relicenced or just the current 
code... _If_ it is the latter, you have a problem in your CLA, as you 
may not have the right to do the BSD relicencing you promissed seeing 
that you forked Qt 4 and not 5...

André