Re: FreeQt ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Troll is using a different economic model for generating revenue than
>> other free software companies. They get other people to write free
>> software (for zero cost to them) on one platform so they can sell it
>> under their own license commercially on other platforms. They
>> prevent those same authors from redistributing the free software they
>> wrote on those other platforms (anything other than the X Window
Leland Olds writes:
> Sorry. I have to correct this inaccuracy.
> Free software authors CAN redistribute free software that they wrote on
> other non-X Window systems. They can also distribute the QT runtime
> with their software on those platforms for "free".
Not as free software, since the toolkit is not freely redistributed for
> The problem is that the toolkit cost a lot of money ($1470 US) on other
> The restrictions as I understand it are thus:
> -The free software author would have to have access to the non-free
> version of the Qt toolkit for the other platform. That is very
> expensive for the author and also for anyone who wanted to compile
> the free software.
I don't think you can call it free software if you can't compile it.
What good is modifiable source code to users (and others) if compiling
their modifications on non-X platforms requires a commercial license?
> -Changes and patches to the Qt library itself can't be distributed
> without Troll Tech first integrating them into their product and
> "blessing" them. Qt wants to keep ownership and control of that.
> (This is true for the X Windows platform as well.)
False. Read the X Window System license:
- ------- start of cut text --------------
Copyright c 1996 X Consortium
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, dis-
tribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit
persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the fol-
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABIL-
ITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT
SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABIL-
ITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from
the X Consortium.
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
- ------- end ----------------------------
>> The X Window System is likely to be replaced, at which point your
>> Qt-based free software will become very non-free.
>> Sounds like a losing bet.
>> Why exactly is Qt almost-free? It's a scam. Just because some free
>> software authors have been snookered into it, doesn't mean we should
>> put all of our hopes and dreams at the whim of a company that works
>> against our interests, our goals, and the free software community.
>> If Linus, GNU, X11, or BSD had used such as license, would Debian
>> exist? Would Linux be what it is today? No.
>> - - Dan
> Some people don't like Qt because it's not free per the debian and gnu
> definition of the word. (In fact it's downright expensive for platforms
> other than the X Windows system.)
You almost have the point.
A big part of the word "free" is that it doesn't mean "use this unless
you want to write Windows95 software", or "as long as you don't try to
make a buck, you can use this". Read the X11 license, the X Consortium
is giving away their software left and right.
> But please don't oppose it with untrue and misleading statements.
> Anyone interested can read the two Qt licenses for themselves at:
I have read the "free" and "professional" Qt licenses. By the way, the
URL is actually http://www.troll.no/
I don't understand why anyone would want to write free software under
someone else's restrictive rules.
A contrasting example: the LGPL. LGPL'ed code stays free, but allows
non-free programs to use it. If you read the LGPL, the FSF doesn't
cover up their motives, they don't mislead people. In fact, when people
(especially Debian) complained that the GPL/LGPL kept bison from freely
being used to develop software, the FSF changed the bison license. They
didn't demand $1470 each time, either.
- - Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .