Choosing the right license

[David Johnson]

On Wednesday 01 November 2000 07:02 pm, Mark Hatch wrote:

> The intention here sounds similar to the Open Motif Public License (sic)
> and the QPL. The OMPL requires royalties for use on non-"open systems" and
> the original QPL was open source only for non-commercial uses. The OMPL is
> *not* an open source license because of this clause. I've heard mixed
> opinions on the QPL, although I've a hard time understanding how it is
> different.

This is a mischaracterization of the QPL, probably unintentional. The 
original Qt license (The Qt Free Edition License), prohibited commercial use. 
However, the QPL only prohibited closed source and proprietary use. A license 
cannot be open source if it contains a blanket prohibition against commercial 
use.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org