[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Qt license change



On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:07:48PM +0100, Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de wrote:
> 
> [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.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, there is a difference between a
Proprietary software, which is evil, and a commercial one, which make software
company live.

if you have to buy commercial Qt at $2000 and more in order to be able to sell
your software, then you are being discriminated at. The fact that you 
give away the source or not is irrelevant here. you can make non proprietary
commercial product, but not with QPLed Qt, only with commercial Qt.

> 
> Do you understand the difference? You have to treat everyone equal, but it
> is okay to restrict proprietary exploit of dfsg free software.
> 

see above, but i agree that this is an a choice that has to be made, but i
think the current debian philosophy is to allow commercial use of programs.

> 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 am not entirely sure of that, he didn't liked the NPL/MPL, and still it is
DFSG.

> 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.
> 

You have something here, i think, but then that is not what they are doing
actually.

> 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 :)
> 

Are you sure QPL is really GPL like, i think this is still being discussed, as
well as to see if QPL is GPl compatible.

> 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.

So you agree that the main point is if Qt can go in main or not ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 


Reply to: