Re: Qt license change

[luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr]

On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 04:36:25PM +0000, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> 
> >Ok that is another point, but i think if you are able to but Qt into main, you
> >can resort to the "library normally distributed with the system" clause of the
> >GPL.
> 
> Yes, I think that's right.
> 
> >I think Qt does not belong in main, but i am not sure if my interpretation of
> >the DFSG, point 6 is correct.
> 
> [...no discrimination against fields of endeavour...]
> 
> >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.
> 
> Both qualify as "use", I believe.

me too ...

> 
> In any case, I don't think copyright restricts the ways you can use a
> program, only the copying of it.  To achieve that effect, the
> restrictions would have to be explicitly written in the licence as a
> condition on copying, forbidding you to copy the program unless you
> agreed to the usage restrictions (a bit like the way shrink-wrap
> licences attempt to restrict usage, e.g. to one user at a time).

Ok if that is true, then i think it is ok, but remember that troll tech is
norwegan company, and thus copyright law and other such may not be the same you
are used to. I would me more happy with it if it was clearly and explicity
stated in the licence, in particular the part previous to the license make me
fear the worse :

The Qt Free Edition can be used to run software written with the Qt
Professional Edition.

	can it also be used to develop software ? does troll tech plan to have both
	professional edition and free edition entirely compatible ? what difference
	will there be between both of them apart from support ?
	
and :

5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to compile,
link and run application programs legally developed by you or third parties.

	This does suggest that there is an illegal way of developping software,
	isn't it ? i don't like this clause ...
	
I have the feeling that this license is not clear enough, it should say things
explicitly, so that we will not pass months discuting this or that point of it
that is not stated clearly, or maybe being sued later because we don't
interpret it in the correct way.
	
> 
> If I got that right, clause 5 in the QPL v0.9 is meaningless, but
> clause 6 does impose real restrictions.
> 
> >Only the first is permited by the QPL, the second is not without buying the
> >commercial Qt.
> 
> Wrong.  QPL v0.9:
> 
>   5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
>      compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you
>      or third parties.
> 
>   6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
>      software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
>      Software under the following restrictions:
>      a. [...]
>      b. [...]
>      c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
>         programs, reusable components and other software items that link with
>         the original or modified versions of the Software under the Artistic
>         license or any GPL license.
> 
> This clause is no more restrictive than the equivalent part of the GPL
> (which requires that if you distribute program executables linked
> against a GPLed library, those executables must also be GPLed).  There
> is nothing in the QPL to say that you may not sell programs you write
> which are linked against the Software, only that you must distribute

but there is nothing that say you can, i am not a lawyer, i don't wish to be
sued if i misinterpret some things, if their intention is not to induce us in
error here, they should state it explicitly, instead of staying vague like they
are doing it.

> those programs under one of a restricted set of licences (including the
> GPL).

the GPl poses no restriction on commercial (not the same as proprietary)
software.

> 
> >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 ?
> 
> And you can do that.  No restrictions, except which licences you may
> use for your program.
> 
> However, there are still a few problems with the QPL:
> 
>  - clause 2 doesn't explicitly grant permission to sell copies of the
>    Software.
> 
>  - clause 6 doesn't define what it means by "the Artistic license" or
>    "any GPL license".  "GPL", as used by GNU, means "General Public
>    License".  Do Troll really mean "any General Public License"!?  (Or
>    even "any General Public License license". ;-))
> 
>  - the "entire package" requirement in clause 2, and all of clause 3
>    (except 3(c)), make it incompatible with the GPL.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER