18 Sep
2008
18 Sep
'08
1:12 p.m.
On Thursday 18 September 2008 11:00:41 James Stone wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Roberto Gordo Saez
<roberto.gordo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And how much code are they depending on that they are not paying for?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:29:38PM +0100, James
Stone wrote:
Yes I realised this as soon as I posted it.
However, it really achieves the same ends.. Trolltech gets paid for
commercial implementations of Qt.
The trouble with using a similar license for LS is a major potential
commercial implementation (including it in hardware) would not have to
pay anything for using LS code.. 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?
Well, the Qt toolkit is dual licensed. If you choose to use the GPL
version, it is completely GPL and no exceptions are attached.
Notice that it is not LGPL, it is GPL only, So if you want to develop
a proprietary application with Qt, you'll need to get the proprietary
license from Qt. I have absolutely no problem with this scheme, the GPL
version is as free (or as restrictive, depending on your point of view)
as the other GPL libraries that are normally installed in a GNU/Linux
distribution. so the developers end out with
nothing. I can see why they did it, but it is annoying that there
couldn't be a more open-source way of licensing it and protecting
their IP... I guess it is still more Free than most closed source
"freeware" though..
The biggest problem is in "pretending" to use the GPL and the confusion that
can / will result. Make up a new license and go to town. See what kind of
traction you get without using the GPL for your code.
James
all the best,
drew