Re: Qt license change
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:30:00PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> > 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)
I guess they could. But licenses don't need to list _everything_ you can do
with the program; that gets crazy.
"The license says I can do a, b, c, d, e, f and g with the program... but I
need to do h. Why can't I do that?"
But you can do whatever you want with it, aside from making copies.
> > 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 ?
Yes, if you want to take Qt 2.0 and distribute all the changes needed to
make your own version. That is, when you release gQt 5.0, it will be a
patch against Qt 2.0. That would be a bit annoying.
Furthermore, gQt would be virtually public domain software, and Troll Tech
would be free to integrate it into commercial Qt.
But gQt would still be free, and once they've released Qt 2.0 under a free
license, they can't take it away.
> > 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 :))
The only point of contention I can see is the GPL compatibility. Of course,
I might have missed something...
Have fun,
Avery
Reply to: