Re: Qt license change
From: 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 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 think we can be fairly sure that copyright law is broadly similar in
all countries signed up to the Berne convention. Of course, I'm not an
expert in ANY country's copyright law, but I've read up on UK copyright
law, and believe I understand it reasonably well, at least so far as it
applies to software.
If you're worried about accepting a licence, read up on your country's
laws. (I very much doubt that the law of other countries could apply
to you except while you're in those countries, or unless you signed a
contract stating that "These terms are to be construed in accordance
with the laws of <country/state X>".)
> 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.
That's not part of the licence. We should therefore consider it only
as clarification. I think it's basically just stating (what they think
is) a consequence of clause 5 of the QPL. I also think that clause 5
says nothing new anyway.
> can it also be used to develop software ?
Yes. Clause 6 states this.
> does troll tech plan to
> have both professional edition and free edition entirely compatible ?
That's nothing to do with licensing. If Troll is going to allow the
free and non-free versions to diverge, licencing can't fix that.
However, in <http://www.troll.no/announce/qpl.html> the Trolls say:
"Troll Tech continues full support for the Qt Professional Edition,
for companies and developers not choosing the Open Source model.
Software written for either of the official versions will remain
completely compatible."
> what difference will there be between both of them apart from support ?
As I understand it, buying the "professional" edition allows you to
distribute non-free Qt programs. With the "free" edition, you can
write and distribute only programs which comply with the terms of
clause 6: either supply source and freedom, or use Artistic or *GPL.
(Note that section 6 doesn't restrict writing commercial free software;
the "reasonable fee" clause is very similar to a requirement of the
GPL.)
>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 ...
Are you paranoid, or what!? Certainly, there are illegal ways to do
many things. You could obtain food illegally, by stealing it. Merely
stating this does not make you more likely to do that, unless you have
a very strange mind...
What would you think if a licence included a clause "You may not do
anything illegal"? It's just stating the obvious, isn't it?
>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.
I don't feel it is unclear. However, if you want, write up your
comments and submit them to Troll Tech before the licence is
finalised.
>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.
I'm not a lawyer either. I can't promise you anything, I'm only
discussing the problems which you seem to have, and trying to say why I
don't think they are problems. If you're worried, visit a real
lawyer. Even then, how sure can you be?
>the GPl poses no restriction on commercial (not the same as proprietary)
>software.
Nether does (my reading of) the QPL. Read my other message for why.
--
Charles Briscoe-Smith
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
Reply to: