[Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

[Donald Carr]

I am not a lawyer, not even half a lawyer; that said:

the good news is that any and all proceeds go into the coffers of
Digia who actually man the register, and they will hopefully find Qt
lucrative enough to ramp up their development and become an
increasingly large contributor, along with all our other partners who
hopefully have a vested rewarding interest in keeping Qt relevant and
widespread.

Qt has always had flexible licensing since some companies/groups
simply feel a general malaise when using software under the GPL/LGPL.
I don't begrudge them this sentiment, the water is somewhat untested
and there are quite possibly dragons afoot. Many commercial customers
were actually alarmed by the increasing intrusion of 3rdparty LGPL
code into the Qt code base that we require for certain core
functionality.  For instance v8's BSD license as opposed to
JavaScriptCore's LGPL should (I believe) remove any LGPL taint from Qt
Quick 2 usage for commercial customers.

Cheers,
Donald

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that the LGPL is perfectly suitable for
> proprietary applications.  I don't want to sound like a greedy
> egomaniac, but giving code I intend to be open source to be used under a
> proprietary license without me getting paid sounds like a rip-off.
>
>
> On 18/04/12 03:57, Scott Aron Bloom wrote:
>> Yes you did..
>>
>> Otherwise, they would have to keep a separate branch, one for opensource one for commercial.
>>
>> Anything you submit can be incorporated in both.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: interest-bounces+scott.bloom=onshorecs.com at qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+scott.bloom=onshorecs.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Nikos Chantziaras
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:55 PM
>> To: interest at qt-project.org
>> Subject: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown
>>
>> I went to register for a Gerrit account.  There I saw that I must agree to a "contributor agreement".  It's very legalese, so I'm not sure if it means what I think it means: Nokia can transform open source code I contribute into non-open code?
>>
>> "Licensor hereby grants, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, to Nokia a sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully paid-up copyright and trade secret license to reproduce, adapt, translate, modify, and prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, make available and distribute Licensor Contribution(s) and any derivative works thereof under license terms of Nokia’s choosing including any Open Source Software license."
>>
>> The beef is the phrase "under license terms of Nokia’s choosing", which can be an open license, but is not required to.
>>
>> Did I understand that correctly?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest



-- 
-------------------------------
 °v°  Donald Carr
/(_)\ Vaguely Professional Penguin lover
 ^ ^

Cave canem, te necet lingendo
Chasing my own tail; hate to see me leave, love to watch me go