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

Re: Qt license change



On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr writes:
> 
> > but there is still the problem on commercial software production with Qt, you
> > have to buy Qt commercial to produce commercial Qt products. I am
> > not entirely sure but they were comments saying that this is not
> > FDSG compliant. and i seem to remember there is some limitation on
> > this, something about fee you can charge, or other such.
> 
> Is it this you're thinking of
> 
> >From DFSG:
> 
>     3. Derived Works
>        The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
>        allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
>        of the original software.
> 
> Are applikations linked with a library a drived work?

They are, yes.


> I fully understand TrollTechs clause. Even programers have to eat ;-)

The QPL requires a commercial license for proprietary apps..
The GPL does not allow commercial apps but doesn't offer other licensing.

Boils down to the same thing:  If the terms are not good enough, you need to
contact the authors for a different license.


> > anyway, it is only a draft, and thus we will have to wait for the definitiv
> > version.
> 
> Nope, we have to push in the right direction!

Not so sure we need to push at all.  I think there MIGHT be a need to ask
them if they'd consider allowing patches to be included in the source rahter
than seperately, but I'm not convinced yet that'll be in conflict with the
GPL.

-- 
Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgppE3TVagl0P.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: