Quote from: kjj on September 09, 2011, 04:14:29 AM

Quote from: aq on September 08, 2011, 11:26:22 PM

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on September 08, 2011, 02:24:56 PM

Quote from: twobits on September 07, 2011, 08:24:37 PM

It is just that. It would be the most restrictive license yet used for anything required. If this was brought in, anyone distributing binaries will also have to make available the source code to the Qt that they used for example or not bundle it. Wxwidgets made sure those conditions did not apply to derived works distributed in binary form. The creators of Qt got dragged a bit towards it even being as unrestricted as the LGPL in the beginning. I had noticed that the licenses picked so far are all much less restrictive and had thought that was a deliberate choice to keep the software free to more uses without the burdens of the GPL

I can't imagine a better way to keep the software freer than with the likes of the GPL, but I suppose that's beyond the point. If copyleft should work its way into the main branch, as it might with the inclusion of Qt, folks who don't like it can just work with their own non-copyleft branch.

Actually I can't imaging someone wants a closed source bitcoin client - the only advantage of not using GPL. As a side effect of using GPL all bitcoin forks would stay open source too, which is not necessary with MIT/BSD. Looking at Linux, GPL did not prevent it from being used commercially, in contrast, it enabled it reaching from smartphones to supercomputers.

GPL software is never open source. It is always free, which is the whole point of the license.

Well, it depends on your definition of the term "open source". These days this usually means an OSI http://www.opensource.org/ approved license.