[LAU] licensing fun, was Re: Yamaha Disklavier Pro grand piano
rhkramer at gmail.com
Thu Sep 18 12:16:32 EDT 2008
On Thursday 18 September 2008 11:05 am, Arnold Krille wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 schrieb James Stone:
> > What I don't quite understand is that Qt has a free/commercial
> > separate licensing, but no-one has the same kind of problem with qt
> > that they have with LS? Would someone care to explain?
> No one??? You surely are funny! What do you think why gnome was
> Not because Qt wasn't free, but because Qt wasn't free enough. Kind of
> the same as with LS/Eisenkraut/etc. not being free enough.
You are right in that Qt wasn't free enough (in the opinion of, for
example, Richard Stallman, and I agreed (FWIW ;-)), but dual licensing
was not the issue at that time.
I can't recall the issue exactly, but, in fact, dual licensing was a
solution to the issue--Qt was not free at the time, by adopting the GPL
(and dual licensing to protect their commercial interests), Qt became
acceptable to people like Richard Stallman. (I'm not 100% sure Richard
Stallman has ever said that, or maybe more to the point, iirc, I think
he may have some bias towards Gnome that was not overcome when Qt
adopted the GPL.)
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video
instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al.
More information about the Linux-audio-user