Yes, that was the point. I misinterpreted the agreement, though, but the point was that you are right in being just the same. If it's wrong for Canonical, is wrong for Qt. If it's right for Qt, it's right for Canonical. I'd personally avoid committing any code to them if I were that skilled (which I'm not), but wouldn't avoid the use, since this is mostly unfair to devs and doesn't change things much for end users (I mean, we, as users, have in both cases the same rights we'd have with plain GPL; the ones having in some way their rights stolen are the developers).The agreement between KDE and Qt solves nothing. It has no guarantee or promise for Qt to be free. It simply states that KDE can make a relicense of "Qt Free"(not Qt) IF Digia fails to do a yearly point release of Qt or "Qt Free". That will not happen unless Digia abandons Qt. What KDE and Qt is doing is discrimination. No other stakeholder have these rights. There is no such thing as asymmetric freedom.