Talk:Q Public License

[moved paragraphs]
I moved these from above the contents to clean up the page a little. Cheers, 188.100.145.206 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

QPL is not copyleft. This mistake is repeated on the copyleft page (which I'm fixing right now). Check the FSF license list to confirm such issues. Markvs 19:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Can anyone qualified for it confirm this, and hopefully correct this article? Haakon 14:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article says "The GPL states that it must always continue to be under that license." which is not correct at all, if I understand correctly. If you release a program under the GPL, and you own all the copyright for that program, you can release a new version later under a different license. I think what has probably been meant is that if you release GPL software, you cannot retract it. Haakon 14:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qt current licensing (GPL vs LGPL)
The article as it currently reads (Jan 30 2012) often refers to Qt's current licensing as being GPL. I believe this is an error, Qt's current licensing is *LGPL*. (LGPL being a bit different from GPL.) Reference: http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing Not all references regarding GPL are wrong in the article, I think just the ones about Qt's current licensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg ercolano (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

KDE's choice

 * KDE immediately chose the GPL.

I don't think that's accurate. If it were, then everything in KDE which links to Qt (i.e., basically everything in KDE) would have to be under the GPL, but some parts of KDE are under the LGPL (khtml, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.132.18.248 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 January 2006

Obfuscation
"The main difference between GPL and QPL is that QPL forces the software developer to provide the source code, if in any way it links with QPL'd code (a library for example), even if the QPL'd code is not distributed with the software developer's code. This was the main reason QPL was used for Qt instead of the GPL. This meant that any code that uses (i.e links with) Qt under the QPL license must distribute in the QPL license and provide the source code."

I can't make heads or tails out of that paragraph. Can someone rewrite it in more user-friendly terms? 204.145.242.1 22:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Is this secion with the main difference true? According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL a software using GPL library has to be released with GPL, thus open-source, as well. Did I misunderstand it?

---

You're absolutely right. This section is 100% wrong and needs to be rewritten posthaste. Can somebody who knows something about the QPL (that is, not me) do something about this, please? Thanks! Cherry Cotton 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

commons
so can we post files to the commons under the QPL or not? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Guys
New Editor at work here, I was playing around with the links and trying to get the link to work out, didn't realize it would screw up the history like that lesson learned 96.231.97.155 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Q Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20020810223609/http://doc.trolltech.com:80/3.0/license.html to http://doc.trolltech.com/3.0/license.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)