Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

[Rest of the post, that contains points previously debated and well-
refuted, snipped]

> Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people
> develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest,

See, there you go again, impugning the motives and character of
others.  Is it really that surprising that sometimes others get
annoyed by this and start to assume things about your personality that
you disagree with?

> especially as the "about" page for PySide spells out the licensing
> objective.

Yes, it does: "PySide is licensed under the LGPL version 2.1 license,
allowing both Free/Open source software and proprietary software
development."

> Take away the proprietary software requirement and you
> might as well use the GPL.

You obviously agree that PySide was coded as a direct replacement for
PyQt, for licensing reasons, so certainly there's a perception that
*something* is wrong with PyQt's license.  Let's see what the PyQt
license page has to say about it:

PyQt is available under the following licenses.

    * GNU General Public License v2
    * GNU General Public License v3
    * PyQt Commercial License

Hmm, the only thing that PySide seems to allow that is missing from
this list seems to be the "O" in "FOSS".  But of course, you already
knew that, because I already explained it, and as you've told me that
you read and think about everything very carefully, obviously your
objective in repeating this nonsense is to mislead and confuse.

Regards,
Pat