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

Re: QPL (was Re: C++ ... )

Matt Taggart wrote:

Alan Cox writes...

KDE standardising needs to follow Qt getting a stable API (maybe Qt3 does this). What do Troll tech think

Well we had hoped to talk to them about it before going any further. We
know they are pretty sick of dealing with license issues (as is everyone
I'm sure). In the minutes from the last lsb-futures confcall,


I got assigned writing up the situation which I haven't gotten to yet :(

We are still in the process of deciding/discovering/documenting what the
LSB's license criteria are. So far the LSB has not included any libraries
that require anything of developers using them. Matt Wilson recently
phrased this as "a no-strings-attached development environment". For
example there are no GPL'd libraries in the the LSB. With the GPL its
clear because developers who use a GPL'd library have to use the GPL.
The QPL is less clear because it depends on the case.

My understanding is that if you use QPL'd software to develop
- an open source product: then you must permit (section 6)
  - use without charge
  - re-distribution of original and modified versions
  - upon request, a copy of non-public software to the original author
- a propriatary product that uses libqt: then you need to pay developer
   license fees.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well. Basically the QPL said that there are two ways to develop with.

a. Free for Free under QPL. You get anything under QPL ... you modify
b. Payment for Payment. Suppose you want to start a new project under copyright. You pay the license to Troll ... and no-one will aks you something.

Basically the sense is the sense GPL sense. If get something free, still Qt itself, you cannot move to copyright,
but you need to re-offer in a non-exclusive mode ... like GPL does.

Eric Raymond help Troll people to design its QPL license.

For anything else there this is the license:


However, something is write code ... a something is design. Almost everyone may write code, design is another matter.


So does this violate the "no-strings-attached" rule? Unlike the GPL it
_is_ possible to create propriatary versions but at a cost. Where do we
draw the line?

As others have pointed out, nothing prevents developers from using things
not in the lsb, they just have to link statically or deliver the DSO
themselves. So the question is what criteria does a candiate need to meet
for us to standardize and promote it?


 Future Technologies, The TOTAL Linux Company!


  Italia:                          USA
  Via Cairoli, 1                   1620 26th Street - 3rd floor South Tower
  33170 - Pordenone (PN)           Santa Monica - CA

  Telefono: +39 0434 - 209 107.
  Fax:      +39 0434 - 209 510.

	http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com -  The best training product ever made!
	http://www.futuretg.com/FTOSX - The best Operating System ever made!
	http://www.LinuxUtilities.org - The most incredible and original Utilities for Linux!
	http://www.LinuxWebCampus.com - The Web site for Linux E-Training !


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Reply to: