wouldn't it be a good idea to include a copy of the GPL into your packages?
At least you should give a hint in the "About"-box.
The only hint I could find so far, is the short description on:
your work is worth to be handeled with the respect it deserves -> GREAT!
Good idea :-) . Ok, I will put some license file in next release.
Now I took a look and there are 4 version of GPL licence - v1, v2, v2.1 and v3. As I can say I really hadn't read them, I only know I should release application for free with source codes (mainly because I use GPL version of Qt). v1 is probably too old but the main difference between v2 - v3 versions is unknown to me. I will go through it but if somebody has some advices (pro/cons for these licenses) please let me know. Thank you.
hmm, I don't know the difference too (and I'm not planning to become a lawyer for this), but I know that the version 3 was a point of discussion for OpenSource-freaks :-/
Since I don't know what Qt expects/requires, I would suggest the latest GPL-version (which seems to be version 3, since June, 29th)
-> BUT <-
remember well when you had your source-code opened/published! I cannot imagine that you can change the license from version 2.1 to version 3 afterwards (hmm, right term?). What I mean is: version 3 cannot be the license for source-code before June, 29th. If you published it on June, 28th and somebody has begun modifying it under the latest valid GPL (June, 28th -> version 2.1) it's still under this license (irrevocablly).
Or: you take version 2.1 with addition: "or, at your option, any later version." as I have read in some licenses before.
I hope, I could make my thoughts clear, because dealing with licenses is _very_ complicated :-)
maybe this could help you:
Allthough I believe these are the pages you found yourself...
So, Qt is licensed under GPL 2.0 so I will probably choose this one.
I wonder how "GPL v2 or later" works. If it means I can release under v2 and change whenever to v3 or it's automatically changed to the last available (v3 now). Do you know?
regarding your question above: as to my knowledge it means,
- if you choose v2, actual code is released under v2. (Surprise!)
- _any_ changes that come afterwards _can_ be licensed (-> published) under a later version of GPL but _need_ not.
- older parts of this new published code are still avaible under v2
- new code (under v3) normally cannot be reverted to v2
- it's only changed automatically to v3 if you (or any developer who _changes_ code) says so
Have you seen the table with the compatibillity-check on http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq ?
so, here we go...
- The use of QT-OpenSourceEdition (your programming-plattform?) requires the publishing of written code under GPL (see: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource ) "GPL" is linked to...
- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html which says (way down to the bottom, under http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC4 that you can integrate your license in the following way:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
END OF QUOTE
-> Conclusion (if there is one to get...): You _must_ take v2 (see QT's request above), as long as you use QT. If you make changes by hand or other means, you can change to v3. But if you (or any other programmer) again uses QT -> changes apparently have to use v2 (I'm getting sick thinking about that...)
Maybe someone should give QT a hint that they should request the _latest_ valid GPL, to get out of that vicious-circle...
P.S: I _promise_ not to ask again for license!!!
Quote: Maybe someone should give QT a hint that they should request the _latest_ valid GPL, to get out of that vicious-circle...
Done! Maybe they will give an answer...
Hello Vacon, thanks for all your responses :-) . For me it's clear if I choose v2 that it can't be v3 and vice versa, but I'm not so sure about v2 and later. If it's like you say that it's up to me when I change to v3 than I would choose v2 and later. I will go through Qt-interest list to find something or ask there question.
So... for now let's suppose it's v2 or later :-) and if not possible just v2.
> thanks for all your responses :-)
No problem! It was me who started that thread -> I deal with it! (having said that: fxxx dealing with licenses!)
> for now let's suppose it's v2 or later :-) and if not possible just v2.
At least for now it's v2!
Why? Have a look at the answers i received from QT (quoting everything would be too much. I qoute only important things. Folowing lines with a ">" in front are mine, without this ">" QT's):
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Note that this is not a quote from the license, but a quote from a
recommended header for source files. We don't use that header. If you
check i.e. qwidget.h:
> My question:
> - Would it be possible to change your request to -> latest published
> version of GPL?
We are reviewing the details of GPLv3, and will decide if we can and
should license under GPLv3 at a later stage.
> - what does "as published by the Free Software Foundation" mean?
> Latest? version 2 as published?
See above. Check our headers, not the FSF pages if you want to see how
we license our software :)
At this point, Qt is released under the GPLv2 only, and not "GPLv2 or
any later version". So software developed against GPL'ed Qt at this
point must be licensed under GPLv2 as well (at least that's how we
understand the FSF). Qt itself cannot be relicensed under the GPLv3 by
anyone except Trolltech, and as mentioned above, our legal folks are
reviewing the options and implications.
Volker Hilsheimer, Support Manager
Trolltech ASA, Oslo - http://www.trolltech.com
->END OF QUOTE<-
Conclusion -> GPL version 2 is the only way to license FileCommander!!!
Thank you :-) .
Log in to post a comment.