From here:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&pid=13263793#13263978
I went here:
http://www.groklaw.net/index.php
and then here:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=381
Surfing the glass.
I don't think I have an ofb account and I don't feel like signing up for yet another account. I guess I will put this here.
I too am behind the GPL. Recent calls for its end are misguided in my humble opinion. That said, I think there is a different problem with the QT dual license than the one Eric addresses.
The problem I see (it may in fact be solved and I am just ignorant of the solution implemented) is that Q cannot take outside contributions without a problem or implementing a fix. So far, I only see one fix and am unaware of it being implemented.
The problem is that in order to accept outside fixes, the outside party must give them something of value for no charge, or they must pay the outside party or give the outside party an interest. This could lead to less contributions from outside parties and slow progress.
Of course, this issue arises wherever the project requires copyrights be assigned regardless of a dual license or only GPL license. It may just be more obvious or offensive to the third parties in the case of a dual license.
If this is unclear, I will try and refine at a later time.
drew