Trolltech to Extend Dual-License to Qt/Windows

scc writes " Trolltech announced today that Qt 4 will be available on Windows under the GPL. While Trolltech has long dual-licensed Qt on X11 (Linux, various Unixes), Mac, and embedded, Windows developers have had no options other than a commercial license."

Comments

Is TrollTech trolling?

[geoffspear]

They claim that to use their software in a commercial setting (or to develop proprietary software from their code, which isn't an issue), you need to buy a commercial license rather than using the GPL. By releasing their software under the GPL, aren't they making it impossible to require a commercial license for use in any setting?

Can't I just download their software under the GPL, and redistribute it to anyone to be used under any setting at all?

Re:Is TrollTech trolling?

[Nurgled]

I think by "use" they mean linking the library to your application. The application developer is the user of Qt, not the application user.

If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL, you must purchase a commercial licence.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling?

[TheRaven64]

Except that (unless they've changed it recently) they specifically prohibit you from doing this. If you develop non-GPL code you must do it on the commercial version. The non-GPL version is licensed on a per-seat basis, so you can't have all of your developers using the GPL version and a single build machine running the commercial version.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling?

[eivindthrondsen]

No, we are not trolling. The point of the dual license model is that we are _dual licensing_ Qt. We offer the Commercial license for proprietary use, and the Open Source Edition for Open Source use. You are of course free to download and redistribute the Open Source Edition, but you need to comply with the provisions of the GPL (distribute source with the binary, accept the freedom of your users to redistribute and modify the source). This is not the same as use under any setting at all.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling?

[vohi]

There are roughly two things that are likely to happen:

- your fix points out an actual bug or deficiency, but is for numerous reasons not something TT wants to apply against their source code. In this case, TT will probably implement a fix for that actual bug, and most likely not use your patch as it came.

- the code you submitted is substantial, correct, of excellent quality and follows TT's own coding style. Then Trolltech will most likely ask you to transfer the copyright for this code to them before they include your code, or to provide the code under a suitable license. Then they will send you a job offer :)

The source code of the Open Source edition of Qt is identical to the source code of the Commercial edition of Qt, so if there is any contributed code in Qt then it went through the above process.

GPL Qt for Windows

[Nurgled]

Didn't someone external to Trolltech port the GPL-licenced code to Windows and licence it under the GPL? Without special clauses in the licence to prevent that, that would presumably be allowed.

Or, do the X11 and Windows versions differ so greatly that such a port is an insurmountable task?

Re:GPL Qt for Windows

[atomice]

Yes they did

Re:GPL Qt for Windows

[atomice]

Yes it does (target Win32)

Ahhh, such excellent news

[Progoth]

Goodbye, MFC.

Just what the doctor ordered!

[osho_gg]

This is exactly what has been requested by many Qt/KDE developers over many years. This will bring about a flourish of new applications being ported from linux to windows (whether you like that or not). This will heat up the Gtk vs. Qt arguments as a major argument against Qt no longer holds. This will also help push KDE Enterprise efforts as many enterprise concerns will be resolved by this move. Good move Trolltech!

Really?

[LilMikey]

I was under the impression that Trolltech did have a GPLed version of Qt for Windows. I thought it was the one included in their GUI programming book (the book is at home so I can't look it up myself). I also seem to recall at least a few projects stating that if you contacted Trolltech and notified them that you were working on an open source project and would like Qt for Windows, they'd give it to you for free (although maybe under a different license?).

Re:Kindows????

[JaxWeb]

Whenever you want?

Yea!

[LoveTheIRS]

Yea! Hopefully, now since cross platform OSS programs can now use QT, the GTK will die an awful awful death. No more hassle making custom widgets in C. Thank the lord. I hope that there is at least some very good competition between QT and GTK now. They are now fighting on relatively equal licensing ground now.

Re:I wish trolltech was associated with canopy

[EirikChambeEng]

We have asked Canopy to divest since SCO turned against Linux. Unfortunately under US and Norwegian law you cannot force someone to sell something. We have sold all our investments in Canopy companies a long time ago. We do not like the fact that Canopy and SCO owns shares in Trolltech. The irony is that they became shareholders because the old Canopy/Caldera wanted us to continue to create good Linux software. Canopy/SCO owns a very small share of Trolltech and has no control or influence whatsoever on the strategy and operations of Trolltech. Trolltech is controlled by it's employees. Eirik Chambe-Eng (President, Trolltech) -----

Re:Kindows????

[Bulln-Bulln]

Quote from KDE-Cygwin:

Posted By: habacker
Date: 2005-01-27 14:21
Summary: source and binary snapshots of QT/Win Free Edition available

The QT/Win Free Edition is not far away from to be a full working release.

Maybe this is why Trolltech made this announcement? Trolltech propably had its reasons not to release the Windows version under GPL, but with this fork their reasons may be undermined. So maybe the guys at Trolltech thought "better done right (by us), than done buggy (by others) and give us bad reputation".

Of course this is just speculation and the close time gap between the KDE-Cygwin announcement and the Trolltech announcement could be just a coincidence.

Re:Ease transition

[eivindthrondsen]

There is nothing weird about the Trolltech Open Source license. The Open Source edition of Qt uses the standard GPL. For further questions, please see our FAQ.

This is both GREAT and FRUSTRATING

[Qwavel]

As a Windows C++ developer, Qt4 is now open-source for my purposes. Since Qt4 is obviously much better than MFC this is very significant.

But it is very frustrating since Qt could have been a very significant C++ framework on windows if it had done this years ago. Now it is a bit late for most of us.

The other frustrating thing is that TT, in the best tradition, is pursuing lock-in (vs. standards) in QT4. By deciding to embrace templated containers in their own proprietary way, vs. the standard, STL, way, they make it much harder for a programmer like me to convert to QT, both practically and morally.

I know they will have all the usual excuses for breaking the standard (I've heard them from MS in the past). It's kind of ironic that, just when MS stops playing games and finally puts out a truly standards compliant compiler (VC7.1) with a great standard library, TT decides to imitate the old MS.

Re:This is both GREAT and FRUSTRATING

[Simon]

The main benefit of Qt's container types is that they are the same on each platform. You have to deal with different STL implementations having different bugs. The other reason Qt doesn't use STL is simply because when Qt was started the STL hadn't settled yet and was a PITA to use for cross platform stuff. So then made their own. Now they have to continue using and supporting their containers types. Their customers have too much code depending on it now.

--
Simon