[Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

[Scott Aron Bloom]

But if you are a commercial customer you are buying yourself out of the LGPL requirements....



-----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 6:03 PM
To: interest at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

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