[Interest] Contributor agreement rundown

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 18/04/12 21:41, Quim Gil wrote:
> Hi, first just making sure you are aware of qt-project.org/legal.html
>
> Most of the content of this thread is explained there, although perhaps
> less poetically or straightforward.
>
> On 04/18/2012 11:01 AM, ext Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> So that argument is moot.
>
> The core argument is:
>
> 1. Qt has dual licensing, open and commercial.

I think you mean open and closed/proprietary, because "open" does not 
imply non-commercial.


> 2. Qt Commercial = Qt (from qt-project.org) + more non-OSS addons + more
> platforms supported

Yes, but contribution does not happen for the non-OSS addons. 
Contributions go to qt-project, and since it's LGPL, it should be able 
to be used with the non-OSS addons.


> 3. Everybody here agrees that Qt as in qt-project.org and Qt as in Qt
> Commercial need to be the same, otherwise it's a mess. This is why the
> Qt Project has that contribution agreement, and this is why Digia
> (maintainer of Qt Commercial) dedicates resources upstreaming their
> patches and being a key player in the Qt releases at qt-project.org.

I don't see why the LGPL can't be used for the commercially supported 
version.


> This game is good enough to have organizations as diverse as KDE or RIM
> to agree on it. But if it's not good for you that's fine, you are not
> forced to sign it and still you have many options to contributoe to the
> Qt Project.

Having open code closed down at will is not my cup of tea.


> May I ask, what is the contribution you have in mind?

Reporting of the desktop environment the application runs in to the 
application, for supporting different interface guidelines (like 
instant-apply preferences in Gnome and other DEs vs "OK/Apply/Cancel" 
buttons on KDE.)