Re: Qt license change
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:20:26AM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 04:52:03PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
>
> Firstly, copyright law apparently doesn't apply to how I can "use" software
> -- only how I can copy it. So if you can legally get a copy, you can
> legally use it for whatever you want.
>
> More importantly, though, developing software for use with Qt is just the
> same as linking things with Qt. I mean, really, if I write source code that
> calls into Qt, and then I compile and link it with Qt, that's what I call
> software development.
>
Ok, but then to save problem and insecurity about this later, they should say
it in they license. (like the clause about binary distribution of derivative
work when only patches are allowed)
> [...]
> > selling, and if they give it away, what will they be selling then ?
>
> I think they're taking the "commercial support for commercial users" risk.
> The Free Qt and the Commercial Qt are the same program, but licensed
> differently -- if you use the Free Qt, you have to make your application
> free as well. Many companies don't want to do that, so they'll buy a
> separate commercial license from Troll.
>
> Notice how all Qt patches you distribute have to give permission "to deal in
> the patch without restriction, including without limitation..." That means
> Troll can relicense your Qt patch into their commercial Qt version, so
> they'll always be allowed to commercially-license the latest and greatest
> Qt, including patches from you, without legal restrictions.
>
Will we be able to take the Qt code and fork a free version of it, if Qt decide
to revert to a Closed model some time in the future ?
> Anyway, the QPL looks DSFG-free to me, so I think Qt can be distributed in
> main.
>
that is because you interpret it like that, but it is not explicity said in the
license that you can develop commercial software with it. (redhat is not going
to like it :))
> Now, as for compatibility with the GPL (which would let us also include KDE
> in main)... I don't know. I'm not even sure why we're allowed to link
> BSDish programs with GPLed ones, aside from the "included with the OS"
> clause. GPL seems quite vague about that.
don't know about this, there seems to be other problems too, anyway, this is
only a draft, and can be changed.
Friendly,
sven LUTHER
Reply to: