Re: Qt license change
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:20:14PM +0100, luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 05:07:48PM +0100, Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de 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 ?
> >
> > 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.
? I can not follow your concerns reading the QPL. The QPL says that you have
to publish your program as open source, for example the GPL or Artistic
License. It does not say that you must not sell it. This is indeed very
similar to libreadline, which is a GPL ed library. You can sell your program
which is using libreadline, but only under a GPL license. You can sell your
program suing Free Qt 2.0, as long as it is an Open Source program.
It is _not_ discrimination not to permit development of commercial software
which is not Open Source.
Selling != Free Software.
Let me rephrase it: The requirement to develop with Free Qt under QPL is
that you publish your program under a GPL like license. Nowhere the QPL says
that you must not sell the product.
> > 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.
Define commercial use. If you think the QPL does forbid commercial use,
please quote the letter of the QPL, so we avoid misunderstandings.
> > 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 do not claim he will like the entire thing, but he will enjoy that Troll
Tech indeed supports the interpretation of a lot of GPL terms. For example,
they say in the annotated version that statically and dynamically linking is
considered to be the same. Indeed, the QPL is enforcing Free Software a lot.
Furthermore, the license seems to be DFSG compatible (there are a few rough
edges, especially section 6. On debian-email, I could read that section 6
will be worked on).
The one thing I dislike at the moment is the required X Free like license
for patches. I know for sure that this license will not encourage me to
write patches for Qt (it is the same backdoor the NPL has: Troll Tech can
incorporate all patches into their commercial version.) On the one hand,
it is okay because Troll Tech gives something back to us for the patches
(and with more and more patches, more and more parts of Qt are free for
every purpose :) On the other hand, this has the same drawbacks as the NPL.
> > I will shut up now and read the real thing.
I did, and I am quite satisfied by the QPL.
> > 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.
I think it is exactly what they are doing. We seem to understand section 6
differently. Maybe we should quote it here and talk about the letters?
> > 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.
QPL is indeed GPL like (except for the patches clause). It is more GPL like
than LGPL like. In fact, it is a hybrid, because once you have developed a
Qt app legally, you can link it with Qt (this is the backdoor so that you
can run programs developed with the commercial version).
However, if the QPL is really compatible with the GPL has to be investigated
very carefully.
> > 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 ?
I think yes, especially when section 6 is rephrased more clearly. I can not
see severe problems with it.
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: