[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

Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgppE3TVagl0P.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: