Subject: Re: QPL issue
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:15:57 -0800
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:15:57 -0800
on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:43:19PM +0100, Joachim Bauernberger ( wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Monday 19 November 2001 15:14, you wrote:
> > > I have been working on a software project which I intend to
> > > license under the QPL. I have decided to choose this type of
> > > license because I thought I could share my source with anybody
> > > interested in seeing it and also charge non-commercial users such
> > > as ISP's, etc... with a fee to recover some of my costs. Anybody
> > > else could use my program at no charge.
> > 
> > This is the QPL.  What about QPL clause 6b?
> > 
> > You can charge anyone whatever you want to give them a copy.  You are
> > welcome to change ISPs something additional.  But once they have a
> > copy, they have the freedom to distribute as many copies as they 
> > want, and you get paid nothing for that.
> > 
> > 
> Thanks for pointing this out to me. I thought that I have understood all 
> points of the license (but obviously I haven't).
> I think I have mixed 2 things up:
> The QPL and the Qt Non Commercial license. 
> However I think that the latter is not OSI approved. Is there any other 
> similar license to that which would be OSI approved??

What's your objective?  To be able to distribute software, but have
exclusive rights to commercial sale?  This is a violation of OSD
definition #1:  "The license shall not restrict any party from selling
or giving away...".

Clarify your goals.  Examine the OSD to see if they conform to
definitions of free software.  If you need suggestions for a compatible
license, you can ask the list.


Karsten M. Self <>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire           

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]