Re: Qt license change
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 04:38:41PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> [redirected to -devel only]
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 16:14:44 +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> > i am not entirely sure here, but it seems to me that you can produce a
> > commercial app with GPL stuff, and sell it.
>
> Yes. See RMS, "Selling Free Software",
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html .
>
I will read it ...
>
>
> > It is true that this is an interpretation of it, and not very clear, i think
> > this is a choice debian will have to make. In any case i feel this license
> > change is not enough for debian to consider building a distrib around kde,
> > beside the other issues like C vs C++, and other such. You can still ship it
> > in non-free though, what was not possible before.
>
> Only if the QPL is compatible with the GPL; which it looks like it isn't.
>
Ok that is another point, but i think if you are able to but Qt into main, you
can resort to the "library normally distributed with the system" clause of the
GPL. so the more important point is if yes or not we can distribute Qt in main
or not, independently of any KDE stuff or other GPL problem.
I think Qt does not belong in main, but i am not sure if my interpretation of
the DFSG, point 6 is correct.
-------------
6.No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from
being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
--------------
What is the proper way to use a library, does it only include using programs
linked to it, or does it also extend to being able to develop software with it.
Only the first is permited by the QPL, the second is not without buying the
commercial Qt.
If i am a software developper, the proper use of the Qt library for me is being
able to use it to produce programs, isn't it ?
i think this is the core of the problem with QPL, because i guess this is what
Troll tech intend it to be, and i don't think they will be willing to change
it, which is something quite understandable since it is the product they are
selling, and if they give it away, what will they be selling then ?
How does this compare to the Dual license of netscape ? i think it was ok for
netscape to do what they did, because they are not living from the netscape
browser, but from their server stuff, but Troll tech cannot give away their
commercial version, and this is exactly what they will be doing if make it DFSG
compliant ...
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
> Ray
> --
> LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
> destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch
> it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.
> - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: