Re: Qt license change
[disclaimer: I did not read the QPL draft yet.]
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 04:52:03PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> 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 ?
No, wait a minute. This sounds familiar. It is the same with the GPL for
libraries. GPL ed libraries are perfectly fine. Right, you cannot use them
for proprietary software, BUT this is not the point. The point is that
nobody can use it for proprietary software, so it does not discrimnate
anyone.
Do you understand the difference? You have to treat everyone equal, but it
is okay to restrict proprietary exploit of dfsg free software.
The way you described the QPL it seems that they are more tending towards a
GPL like license than a LGPL license, something that will make RMS very
happy indeed!
I will shut up now and read the real thing.
> 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 ?
They would sell the right to use the Qt library even when not making the
result free. It is like GPL libraries: You can sell licenses to use it even
when the derived work (the program linked with it) is not free itself.
LGPL like license would kill Troll Tech probably, so they seem to tend to a
GPL like license. Indeed, this enforces free software even stronger, and
makes free software advocates happy (but propably not Alex :)
DFSG freeness does not mean that you can link to the library with non-free
programs. At least for the GPL and RMS, linking with a library is
constituting a derived work.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: