Re: Qt Eclipse integration license (discriminating against group of users)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>]

Jakub Adam <jakub.adam@ktknet.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on a package for Eclipse Qt Integration [1]. Some of the
> source
> files come with following license:
> 
> /****************************************************************************
> **
> ** Copyright (C) 2009 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies).
> ** All rights reserved.
> ** Contact: Nokia Corporation (qt-info@nokia.com)
> **
> ** This file is part of the Qt Designer of the Qt Toolkit.
> **
> ** Windows(R) users may use this file under the terms of the Qt Eclipse
> ** Plug In License Agreement Version 1.0 as attached in the LICENSE.TXT
> ** [2]
> file.

My brief analysis of this license is that it is non-free.  It only
allows using the file in conjunction with Qt on Windows machines.  It
looks like a fairly standard proprietary license.  This is probably
here to reassure developers of proprietary software.

> ** Linux(R) users may use this file under the terms of the GNU Lesser
> ** General Public License Agreement version 2.1 as shown in the
> LGPL-2_1.TXT file.
> **
> ****************************************************************************/
> 
> This license in itself is discriminating against users, so it has to
> go
> in non-free.
> 
> But there is a potential loop-hole in this license via the LGPL-2.1.
> A "Linux user" could choose the LGPL-2.1 offer (the file has no
> extra restrictions) and via the terms of the LGPL-2.1 distribute the
> sources under a LGPL-2.1. The only issue is there is no "definition"
> of
> a Linux user (as far as I can tell), so I am not sure it is a "safe"
> work around.
> 
> What is your opinion? Are we allowed to redistribute these files under
> terms of
> LGPL-2.1 only, or must this license be considered non-free?

You should contact upstream and clarify what they really want to do.
In particular, ask them if it is ok for you to do what you asking.  If
it is not ok, then the code is not really licensed under the LGPL, and
it would be good to know that.

Ideally, they would remove that restriction in the license so that it
would read something like

** You may use this file under the terms of the GNU Lesser
** General Public License Agreement version 2.1 as shown in the LGPL-2_1.TXT file.
**
** Alternately, Windows(R) users may use this file under the terms of the Qt Eclipse
** Plug In License Agreement Version 1.0 as attached in the LICENSE.TXT
** file.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@caltech.edu