coapp-developers team mailing list archive

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wmrowe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/7/2010 10:40 PM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> 
> Qt's an interesting one.  TrollTe^WNokia altered the licensing options
> available with Qt 4.x, allowing open source projects to freely use the
> entire distribution on Windows, but only via the MingW tool chain.
> 
> If you want to use the VS tool chain (and all the VS bells and
> whistles), you have to purchase a commercial license (regardless of
> whether or not your project was open source).

I think my solution was to use the GPL license.  It's been a while, but
essentially Qt was dual licensed; the dual license excludes the ability
to add any constraints to the gnu license [which includes limiting which
compiler, etc were used].  There is no problem compiling with msvc, but
there is a problem combining it with closed source.

I look towards CoApp as a place offering builds of open source packages
from open source, and mitigating the headaches for users.  Which does
point to one important point; when users leverage GPL code they will
end up with a GPL application.

What can CoApp do to help users distinguish when they have created some
copyleft source dependency (not a big deal, if they rely on CoApp to then
deploy it) or a viral copyleft dependency that impacts the code that they
create, relying upon it?