Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt

Funkmaster F writes "At the KDE Developer Conference today, Trolltech CEO Havaard Nord announced that its Qt application development toolkit will be released under GPL 3. 'Here at the KDE release event, Nord's announcement was met with applause. Like Trolltech's initial decision to move from its own QPL license to the GPL, this announcement and the company's more recent decision to adopt the GPL for all platforms rather than just Linux, demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to openness.'"

Comments

Gnome

[calebt3]

So the complaint that KDE is not as "open" as Gnome is no longer valid?

Re:Gnome

[AJWM]

I don't think that complaint has been valid in the last ten years, or whenever it was that Trolltech released the Qt library under GPL 2.

Arguably Gnome is the less open desktop, since GTK is licensed under the lesser GPL.

Re:Gnome

[philipp-de]

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too. The GPL requires this.

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is not "Is it as open as GNOME?"; they've been more or less the same amount of "Open" for years and years now.

The question is "Is it as Free as GNOME?" And the answer to that question is very complex. It's more free in terms of the user, as now anywhere that Qt is installed (under the GPLv3), you can install your own version at a later date. However, this will probably force people to seek out more commercial licenses and is probably the entire reason for the move.

GNOME/GTK+/GLib is more free in terms of the developer; commercial developers don't have to seek out any special licensing requirements if they just want to link to GNOME/GTK+/GLib, as is the case of many commercial applications simply seeking a graphical toolkit. It's less free in that the users may or may not have access to replace it on certain platforms.

Re:Gnome

[AJWM]

It gives the developer using the library more freedom, not everyone else. Hence the FSF's name change of the LGPL from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL".

Of course it's the same argument that BSD license proponents put forth. It boils down to who you're talking about, the developer or the downstream users (who may also be developers). As a user, I prefer the GPL. As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application. (And I'll take a BSD or LGPL'd library over a closed-source proprietary one so that I retain control over my own software; it sucks when your library vendor changes things, or it doesn't work quite as documented.)

Re:Gnome

[larry bagina]

end users still have access to the source code for the LGPL parts and any modifications to the LGPL parts must be made available.

Re:Gnome

[donscarletti]

Well, QT has been using GPL2 for quite a while now. However the big point of concern with some people is that QT does not use LGPL which would allow GPL incompatible licences to interoperate with the libraries like GTK does. Of course there is the argument, such as that that made by the FSF that ALL libraries should be GPL in order to encourage GPL compatible software to have an advantage, but in my mind having a platform open to crazy licences and/or closed software is more important and the fact that Trolltech provides a commercial licence to circumvent these restrictions indicates that they probably agree with me.

I don't believe that BSD licensed software is freer than GPL, however I do believe that the dynamic linking process provides a good boundary between licences for interoperability as per the LGPL. Trolltech who dissolve this boundary for profit and the FSF who dissolve this boundary to push their ideological agendas are not working in the spirit of openness. Switching libraries to GPL3 from GPL2 and especially LGPL will do nothing but further restrict what the program on the other side can be doing will do a lot for ideological and commercial leveraging at the expense of that library as a universal platform.

Re:Gnome

[rustalot42684]

Your argument is invalid. See http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html.

Academic Free License 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 Apache Software License 1.0 or 1.1 Apache License 2.0 Apple Public Source License 2.0 Artistic license From Perl 5.8.0 BSD license "July 22 1999" Common Public License 1.0 Eclipse Public License 1.0 GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) 2.0 or 2.1 Jabber Open Source License 1.0 MIT License (as set forth in the addendum file) Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0 or 1.1 Open Software License 2.0, 3.0 OpenSSL license (with original SSLeay license) "2003" ("1998") PHP License 3.0 Python license (CNRI Python License) (as set forth in the addendum file) Python Software Foundation License 2.1.1 Q Public License v1.0 Sleepycat License "1999" W3C License "2001" X11 License X11R6.6 Zlib/libpng License (as set forth in the addendum file) Zope Public License 2.0, 2.1

Re:Gnome

[gambolt]

Not to mention the mono cancer.

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, there is no way you can associate "commercial product" with "non free software".
and, by allowing people to write "non free software" over free software libraries, is not in any
way giving more freedom. not to who writes the library, neither (of course) to who will use it.

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep this in mind. The KDE project REFUSES to have any other GPLed library (as opposed to LGPL) as part of the official KDE desktop. Why?

If you are a commercial closed software company, you have to pay money to Trolltech to have your software based on KDE. Far from being a Free software cheerleader for GPL purity, the KDE project is a system for funneling money into Trolltech via license fees. This is why they refuse to have any other GPL libraries... only Trolltech.

Re:Gnome

[Spy der Mann]

As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application.

You've hit the nail on the head.

In case of libraries, LGPL >> GPL. Why? Because commercial applications won't use GPL libraries. Period. Just imagine if gaming libraries were GPL. Nobody would use them. Oh, look, almost nobody uses them anyway! Most PC games require DirectX.

It's basic economics. If software makers have to choose between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library that they can use without being forced to release their code, guess which one they'll choose? The losers are going to be the end users. So much for freedom.

And don't get me started with MySQL...

Re:Gnome

[Creepy Crawler]

I think of it as mononucleosis.

Just give it 2 weeks and it'll clear up with the appropriate drugs.

Re:Gnome

[Antiocheian]

The main point of the GPL is inheritance of freedom and not software quality.

commercial applications won't use GPL libraries [...] between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library

Which means GPL'ed applications will be more competitive for they will use the magnificent library instead.

Re:Gnome

[kripkenstein]

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too. It isn't just for commercial products. For example, until this latest development you couldn't write Qt apps that were GPL3, and KDE was having problems with using GPL3 code. The same problem will occur if you want to write using any FOSS license that isn't compatible with Trolltech's licensing for Qt.

The LGPL lets you use the platform to write whatever you want: free software under any license, proprietary software, etc. etc. Qt being under the control of Trolltech means that they decide what licenses you can use, free or otherwise. Now, Trolltech has been going in the direction of openness recently, and this announcement is more proof of that, but its product is still not as flexible as GTK, or the Linux kernel for that matter - you can write apps to run on Linux that use any license, just like GTK, and unlike Qt. I've posted it before, I'll post it again - would Linux be as successful today if it were licensed like Qt is, i.e., that you need to pay if you aren't GPLed (or on a shortlist of other FOSS licenses)?

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

To boot, if a business is using TT libs for some embedded component, the people who buy the embedded component can demand all specs, materials, and every single trade secret, thanks to the GPL 3.

This is why businesses are being told by their attorneys to drop all Linux support, and pay the $3 per product that Windows CE requires. Then, trade secrets (which may be under contract) are not at risk. Also, thanks to SOX, using knowingly using GPL 3 code (with the fact that anyone who you distribute the code to can demand all trade secrets) is a breach of due diligence and can mean prison time, as well as lots of shareholder lawsuits.

Re:Gnome

[aichpvee]

Linux is licensed like Qt, or was before Qt went GPL3. It just isn't a library so you can write stuff on top of it without linking against the kernel and requiring your to release your source. So you don't have much of a point there. Do you really expect Trolltech to give away the store and still be able to put out their product? And I don't see much point in arguing that GTK is more flexible for closed-source commercial apps anyway, can you even name any that use it? Because I can't, but I can definitely name some that use Qt.

Re:Gnome

[rumith]

Not a valid point any longer: since Qt 4.3 Trolltech has added a so-called "GPL Exception". Basically, they have listed plenty of licenses, such as MIT and Apache, that you can legally use in your project while linking against the GPL-licensed version of Qt. Here: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html/

Re:Gnome

[teg]

So the complaint that KDE is not as "open" as Gnome is no longer valid?

It isn't. Gnome libraries are LGPL. QT is GPL v3. You can develop non-free applications on both - however, if you want to to do it on KDE, you have to pay the Trolltech toll booth. And since QT is GPL v3, you don't even have the option of writing GPL v2 code - and I'm unsure how using GPL v2 only code would work out too. Thus, Gnome is still far more open.

Re:Gnome

[muuh-gnu]

From the point of view of a free software developer, LGPL and GPLv3 are both equally free. The differences come in only if you are a proprietary developer looking for ways to embrace, extend and close up somebody elses code. Thats really all there is to the additional "freedoms" you have with the LGPL. Freedom to make code unfree. A way to sue people who copy code closed up which once was free distributable.

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a commercial closed software company, you have to pay money to Trolltech to have your software based on KDE.

If you are a commercial closed software company, you have to pay money and/or appropriate dues to ... any party at all whose code you incorporate into your product.

This, of course, includes any part of Windows, or any part of a any Windows development toolkit.

There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't pay Microsoft just to run on Windows and use Windows services... shithead.

But hey, you like the KDE-bot who modded the original post, don't/can't understand the issue.

Re:Gnome

[KDR_11k]

I would argue the LGPL provides more freedom while the GPL liberates more code.

Re:Gnome

[Uncle_Al]

QT is GPL v3 [...] And since QT is GPL v3, you don't even have the option of writing GPL v2 code Sorry, but please read before stating such untruths.

Qt is now GPLv2 + GPLv3 + commercial + QPL (in the case of the X11 version) + any future GPL version as publicly accepted by Trolltech and the Free Qt Foundation. Additionally your own code can be under one of various licenses as stated in Trolltechs gpl exception.

Re:Gnome

[TheRaven64]

This is why businesses are being told by their attorneys to drop all Linux support, and pay the $3 per product that Windows CE requires. Porting to Windows CE and paying $3 per product sounds a lot more expensive than porting to a BSD variant. I wonder what kind of lawyer is making this recommendation.

Re:Gnome

[TheRaven64]

From the point of view of a free software developer, LGPL and GPLv3 are both equally free. As a Free Software developer, I take exception to this. Last year I released about 15,000 lines of code as Free Software under BSD and MIT licenses (and contributed to one LGPL'd project). To me, the GPL and LGPL (any version) are not equivalent. The LGPL allows me to release the code under my choice of license.

Re:Gnome

[drinkypoo]

GPL'ed applications will be more competitive for they will use the magnificent library instead.

Ever notice that there is no OSS clone of photoshop that is as good? (None of them even have decent photoshop plugin support, a feature which is present in several closed applications.) Ever notice that there's no OSS FPS engine as powerful or complete as half-life 2, no driving games as polished as basically any of the popular examples of that genre (too many to mention) and no RTSes as good as TA or Starcraft, whichever's your poison; there's no autocad or solidworks replacement...

In theory, OSS will always surpass closed-source stuff given enough time. If we were all programmers it would happen nearly overnight. But in the really real world, OSS tends to be either stable or advanced but not both. There are exceptions, don't get me wrong. They are limited.

Getting more commercial developers onboard the OSS train is, I feel, the solution to the problem (if it can be said to be a problem.) However we get them there it is a good thing. Anything that convinces them to release as much code as possible is positive! If it's a choice between them releasing some of their code, and releasing none of their code, I'm content with it being just some. It still puts us ahead.

Re:Gnome

[aquabat]

The differences come in only if you are a proprietary developer looking for ways to embrace, extend and close up somebody elses code. Thats really all there is to the additional "freedoms" you have with the LGPL. Freedom to make code unfree. A way to sue people who copy code closed up which once was free distributable. LGPL Doesn't let you close up code that was once free. LGPL lets you close up your own code, while linking against code that is still free. You don't have to distribute your own code under the LGPL if you link against an LGPL library. If the linked-in library was GPL, then you would have to distribute your own code under the GPL. The LGPL was created specifically to avoid this GPL situation.

Re:Gnome

[HuguesT]

The supply of F/OSS developers is limited, the revolution is happening but not overnight. Think of F/OSS as an enormous entity that puts forth the likes of the Linux & BSD kernels, the development tools, and all the little and great applications including the best GUI toolkits. No time for trifling matters there.

No clone of Photoshop, Autocad, Matlab, Mathematica and whatnot that is as good or better? Cry me a river. Some years ago people complained that there wasn't an OSS clone of bloody MS-Office that wasn't as good or better. Now look, we have OO.org, which gives it a run for its money, and multi-platform to boot. We know MS is shaking in its boots.

Adobe is next. I already prefer Inkscape to Illustrator. Wait another few years, we have the time.

Some software will be proprietary for a long time I think. Most games are short-lived and currently require much more than programming skills. However I've noticed the quality of OSS games improving vastly in the last few years, not least due to the practice of Id to Free its old engines.

At the moment it's possible to run F/OSS for most tasks. Personally I sometime run non-Free software to verify that I don't really to do this.

Re:Gnome

[Antiocheian]

I don't think it's a case of with us or against us. It is natural that open source will always lag in fields where few creative minds (graphic artists, musicians etc) are required to work full time in a tight schedule (as it is in games) and it will excel when many developers can contribute even a little code on a project. That said, I need to understand why allowing one to use open source code would also convince them to release some of theirs.

Re:Gnome

[dshadowwolf]

This is the problem with the GPL and LGPL - no matter how many times you #include a file that contains interface information for a GPL'd library you aren't creating a derivative. It doesn't matter one bit that the final output contains things carried over from those header files - because #include is acted on by a mechanical translation mechanism. Under US and *MOST* other nations copyright laws, a mechanical translation cannot hold a separate copyright from the original. What this means is that you can write an application that uses Qt, Gnome, etc... and release it under your own license - with no requirement to distribute the source code to the application. It doesn't affect the license on the libraries - you will still be bound by the license on them - but... Basically what it means is that the LGPL and the "Bison Exception" were never needed.

Re:Gnome

[marcosdumay]

Well, you can't argue that GPL is more free than LGPL (or BSD while I'm at it), nor the other way around.

Both licenses have different goals, and fit well to different projects/organizations. There is no point on comparing them that way.

Re:Gnome

[dubious_1]

Actually the problem with the GPL V3 is that it attempts to extend the software license to restrictions on the hardware that runs it.
I am more than willing to release the software modifications or extensions that I make into the community, keeping that software free and adding to it. I am not necessarily willing or able to provide to the world at large the ability to load and run modified software on my hardware. This is particularly the case when I am selling a security product where the ability to lock the hardware down is basic to ensuring the security.
GPL V2 allowed me to satisfy both goals, V3 does not.

Re:Gnome

[xhrit]

Spring. Open source, 3d clone ov TA.
The Quake 3 Engine is open source. As soon as Quake Zero is released, the Quake 4 engine will be open source.
The gimp is almost as good as photoshop (and in some cases better; look at cinepaint.)
Racer has better graphics then most console games, and realistic driving physics.
QCad OSE is an open source version ov commercial cad software.
Descent Freespace, (the best action space sim ever) is open source.
Ever notice that there is no OSS clone of windows that is as good? Oh, wait. There is.
owned.

Its good to see more companies going OSS

[kcbanner]

They are realizing that they can actually make more money this way, plus they get free bugfixes and user support as well. It's a win-win :)

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS

[shadylookin]

They were Open source to begin with(with the exception of their windows port) they just went to GPLv3. They probably opened the windows source because they knew someone would probalby just fork off and port the gpled linux code over to windows anyway.

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS

[EsbenMoseHansen]

They were Open source to begin with(with the exception of their windows port) they just went to GPLv3. They probably opened the windows source because they knew someone would probalby just fork off and port the gpled linux code over to windows anyway.

The windows port has also been GPL since 4.0, so that part is old news. The only change seems to be upgrading (;)) from v2 to v3.

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It's too early it appears. GPLv3 was simply added as an additional license. So GPLv2 still applies, if you wish,

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Brush up on your free software history, QT was originaly under the QPL.

When will NIGGERTECH adopt it?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL2 is for whites.

RON PAUL '08

Re:When will NIGGERTECH adopt it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord im getting old,i remember when a troll was a clever red herring dragged across a discussion being conducted by people who's lips don't move when they read in the hope of either advancing a hidden agenda or breaching someone's usually comfy prejudices. the n word!? is there a group of people anywhere who havn't heard it? is there anyone who actually cares? for fucks sake black people call each other nigger! its got the shock value of do you know where baby's come from? and goatse!? spare me. theres more shock/horror in my tax refund. who do these nitwits think they are trolling ned flanders? i like being shocked now and then i chuckled my way thru requiem for a dream last night and the n word is going to ruin my day? lol adolescence is a rough time kids,but when you finally get enough money together to hire a hooker you will find out that sex is like hearing the nigger word for the first time, its special. After that its just more of the same. Cause no woman is going to fuck you for free trust me!

I am not applauding.

[jellomizer]

GPL 3 in my opinion takes to many rights away from the developer. So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally. It is one thing to make your app GPL but I really hate developer's toolkits in such a restrictive license. I want the freedom to do what I want with my code. And find and use the best tools to help me focus on completing what I want. QT is a good multi-platform Graphics Library. But now I am restricted. Just because some people decided that DRM is evil... Unless I am IBM and I am a big financial donator to the FSF, then that case they will alter the license to allow my DRM To work.
I agree DRM is a bad idea and I personally don't care for it, but... I hate the idea of people saying if you are going to use these tools you can't do this with it... I am a big supporter of GPL2 and Open Source and software freedom. But saying I can't use my software for what you consider Evil is not freedom to me.
I know if I make DRM program I am theoretically removing freedom of the end user... But as I see it I give them freedom to choose to read DRM information where otherwise they cannot use it at all and give them a disadvantage. Besides it is very difficult to make a working secure DRM system open source but to say I can't try just makes me angry.
I am not going to blindly follow someone or a group based on past good deeds I am going to follow the group that I feel is protecting my freedoms now and not trying to control me. If you see the history many of the most oppressive dictators got into power because they were one of the strongest fighters for freedom. But after they got control and recognition they started to pull the reigns on their supporter and slowly take away the freedom. Leaving people to have less freedom then when they started with... I see the FSF starting to do the same and using people who blindly support the old FSF and slowing adding restrictions and making it sound good. For people to bend their principals a little bit each time.

Re:I am not applauding.

[AJWM]

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose..

Sure you can; just pay Trolltech for a commercial license. That's always been an option.

Re:I am not applauding.

[jellomizer]

But by doing so I cannot make a GPL 2 app, or an other Open Source app.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are plain wrong. Qt is released under GPL v3 and GPL v2. Just chose the license you prefer at your convenience.

Re:I am not applauding.

[jellomizer]

In that case and if both versions will be equally kept up to date I am happy.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Omnifarious]

Wow, way to spread FUD.

The GPLv3 requires that if you sell a piece of hardware that allows the software in it to be updated, and that software is covered by the GPLv3, the user must be able to update it with their own version as well as versions you supply. There's nothing about not allowing DRM.

This makes it easier for a user to bypass DRM for end-user devices like Kindle or the iPhone and such. But it doesn't disallow you from implementing it. So your point is basically as wrong as saying that the GPLv2 doesn't allow you to make money on your software.

Re:I am not applauding.

[DaleGlass]

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.

I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.

What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be used in practice?

Re:I am not applauding.

[DigbyChickenCaesar]

Complete and utter rubbish.

You say

But saying I can't use my software for what you consider Evil

That is a complete and utter strawman. No-one but you can say how your code can be used. If I were to assume that you were an intelligent person I would guess that you meant:

But saying I can't use a combination of your software and my software, for what you consider Evil

But that is a completely different kettle of fish.

You can do anything you like with the code you write, but if you want to use any code written by someone else you have to abide by their rules. It really is simple and it was summed up years ago (paraphrasing):

Your freedom to do as you like stops at the tip of my nose

Re:I am not applauding.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...with my code."

And therein is the problem with your argument. It is not your code. It is the code of the person who wrote it.

With anything that is yours, which means you wrote it, you have complete freedom to ignore the GPL, do what you want with it or even roll it up and smoke it like a cigar. Until then please stop wanting a free ride off other people's work. Yes, it is your decision to use the developer toolkit that someone else wrote.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Fry-kun]

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Artraze]

The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Brandybuck]

Qt will be under GPL3 AND GPL2! (As well as QPL for Qt/X11). Nothing has changed for you except that you have one new option. In addition, the license from Trolltech includes disclaimers for most common Open Source licenses.

Your worries are very mislaid.

Re:I am not applauding.

[ilikepi314]

I did not think the GPL3 said "DRM is evil", just that you have to make available a way of removing the DRM if the user requests it. Is my understanding completely off, or can someone support me on that?

I hate the idea of people saying if you are going to use these tools you can't do this with it Well, that's exactly my complaint with DRM. You say this, and then complain that you aren't able to tell people "you have to get music with my DRM, you can't do what you want with it.". Seems a bit hypocritical. You want to use toolkits for what you want; when I get buy music, I want to listen to it where and when I want. Same principle. Why do you deserve more freedom than I?

But as I see it I give them freedom to choose to read DRM information where otherwise they cannot use it at all and give them a disadvantage. Much like giving people the freedom to choose to get a barcode tatooed on the back of their neck so they can get what they need, when otherwise they wouldn't be able to, eh? That's not really a freedom if you have no choice in the matter. I think I'm more worried about what you just said than what RMS has ever said.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Why can't you?

If you're making GPL 2 code, then implicitly you're distributing source. Make your source code GPL 2 and let the user supply their own Qt library. That's how it's done right now anyway. Qt comes with the OS as a part of the system. None of the apps on your box have Qt bundled. If you're not distributing Qt you don't have to worry.

Re:I am not applauding.

[jimbostyx]

From the horse's mouth:

...you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological "protection" measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, he will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws. As I read that, it means you can't sue someone if they break your DRM implementation. Seems fair to me.

Re:I am not applauding.

[filbranden]

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.

Of course you can make a GPL (v2 or v3) application which is defective by design. You just can not prevent anyone from fixing it!

Re:I am not applauding.

[gadzook33]

Also, ironically, you used "then you" in your sig. Also, it's grammatically incorrect. And the punctuation is wrong.

So there's a possibility they are smarter than you.

Re:I am not applauding.

[10e6Steve]

This is getting confusing. I can understand thousands of lines of code of complex algorithms, but ask me about GPL and I'm lost.

Re:I am not applauding.

[donaldm]

Well GPL3 and GPL2 do take away the "so called rights of a developer" to grab the code and make it their own. If you want to get GPL'd code and keep it in-house that's ok, but if you sell the modified code you must provide the source on request. Personally I cannot see a problem with that. Anyway the GPL can exist with proprietary code however it is important to define the line between them. Actually I don't know of any license that requires you to make your source (providing it is your own source) available or even owned by the maker's license of a library (look at NAG or IMSL libraries if you want an example) or even a compiler. In other words your proprietary code can call QT Libraries but you can not modify the QT libraries without publishing the changes.

Like it or not software is becoming the new land grab and ruthless companies (not just Microsoft) can ride roughshod over a well meaning and in many ways an idealistic software developer by actually take away their code and make it their own with no compensation to the developer, this is what the GPL was written to redress.

No formal or even informal agreement can exist in within the fabric of a societies Law without amendments added to it over time to hopefully protect the rights of the person or persons who it applies to. Looking at the GPL which was written almost 19 years ago, over time newer amendments must be made to cope with the vagaries of Law and to date GPL3 the latest revision.

I am not going to blindly follow someone or a group based on past good deeds I am going to follow the group that I feel is protecting my freedoms now and not trying to control me. If you see the history many of the most oppressive dictators got into power because they were one of the strongest fighters for freedom. But after they got control and recognition they started to pull the reigns on their supporter and slowly take away the freedom. Leaving people to have less freedom then when they started with... I see the FSF starting to do the same and using people who blindly support the old FSF and slowing adding restrictions and making it sound good. For people to bend their principals a little bit each time. No one is asking you to blindly follow someone, the choice has always been yours. If you don't like the GPL then use some other License if you wish, the choice is entirely up to you. Of course when I read what you have written which likens the FSF to something like the Nazi Party in the late 1920's that reads like trolling. At least you don't have to worry that some jack-booted, brown-shirted FSF member is going to intimidate you or start beating up on innocent Microsoft employees, or worse yet Richard Stallman here defending himself against ninja's. :-)

Re:I am not applauding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it. Actually, that's not exactly true.

Qt's commercial license indeed has a restriction, that you can not develop an application that was *previously* developed on the GPL version of Qt. So you can't develop your software against the GPLed Qt, test the waters, and only when there looks like to be profit, buy a commercial lincense and ship it.

This is a very reasonable restriction, but a restriction nontheless. So it's not "anything you want" as you claimed.

Re:I am not applauding.

[PeterBrett]

But by doing so I cannot make a GPL 2 app, or an other Open Source app.

( -1, RTFA )

Qt is now triple-licensed :

For clients and users who are somehow constrained to the GPLv2, nothing changes. Qt is now a triple-licensed toolkit: commercial, GPL version 2 and GPL version 3 (technically, the X11 version is even quadruple-licensed). In the Open Source version, you get to choose which one you want to apply to your code. And if neither option is suitable for your needs, theres always the commercial alternative. One other thing I would like to point out is the fact that we are future-proofing it. The new license headers say specifically that you may:

(at your option) use any later version of the GNU General Public License if such license has been publicly approved by Trolltech ASA (or its successors, if any) and the KDE Free Qt Foundation.

So, I hope your fears are thoroughly allayed, and you can go about your business today with piece of mind that at least on commercial software vendor understands your software licensing worries.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Howitzer86]

I thought it was about the freedom for hobbyist programmers. The usual end user isn't going to fret over the closed state of a printer driver or similar program. The usual end user is about finding entertainment or getting a task done. GPL sucks at entertaining people, and GPL productivity programs usually tend to be second best to their closed source counter parts.

I'm going to get modded down and I don't care. I'm not a coward.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a GPLv2 app?

Re:I am not applauding.

[Hooded One]

There are no separate versions. There is only one codebase for any given version of Qt, with the only difference being the license headers, and the few features that are only available in the commercial version (the website mentions "commercial database drivers and the Visual Studio Integration on Windows.") The Open Source edition is a single package containing all the applicable licenses.

(Or, for the short answer, "they will be.")

Re:I am not applauding.

[tepples]

The GPLv3 requires that if you sell a piece of hardware that allows the software in it to be updated, and that software is covered by the GPLv3, the user must be able to update it with their own version as well as versions you supply. Which set-top video gaming platform is suitable for a game distributed under GPLv3?

Re:I am not applauding.

[Omnifarious]

Any of them. As near as I can tell the hardware protection they offer is fairly easily bypassed. Many people I know have done it. So having it is fairly pointless.

Re:I am not applauding.

[msuarezalvarez]

So `freedom' for you means that you should be able to use anyone's code under the licence you choose. Quite a comfortable position!

Re:I am not applauding.

[tepples]

As near as I can tell the hardware protection [that video game consoles] offer is fairly easily bypassed. Many people I know have done it. So having it is fairly pointless.

I can think of five set-top game players still sold new in North America: Games for Windows (e.g. Shuttle XPC), Mac OS X (e.g. Mac mini), PLAYSTATION 3, Xbox 360, and Wii. The first three can run GNU/Linux. Now about the others:

With Xbox 360, you need XNA Creators Club in order to mod a newly purchased machine to run homebrew. This XNA Creators Club subscription costs $495 per machine for the typical five-year life of a console. In the case of a program under the GPL, "Installation Information" would probably need to include an XNA Creators Club subscription. People who port GPLv3 software to Xbox 360 would have to provide Installation Information along with the Corresponding Source, and it's not clear whether $99 for the first year of an XNA Creators Club subscription counts as "a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source".

To my knowledge, the one existing Wii crack has not yet been generalized to the point where anybody who has bought a Wii can stick in a disc or plug a card into the outside and start homebrew.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Omnifarious]

Legally speaking, you are correct. There is no legal way for people to make a GPLv3 game for the Xbox 360 or the Wii. There is a way to hack each of those platforms, but that way is quasi-legal or illegal and not suitable for a game distributed under the GPLv3.

That is irritating, and I agree that it presents a problem for the GPLv3, even though I think those hardware platforms are essentially defective. I don't think not supporting defective hardware is quite the right choice at this point in the evolution of Free Software.

That's an interesting point, and I'm going to have to consider dual licensing my code under the GPLv2 and GPLv3 for the time being.

haha, suck it. WOOO WOOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

take a lickie of my skin-whistle!

actually, since you're a nigger, just shut fuck up..

Greate news!

[scenestar]

This has really taken away my final doubts about using qt-toolkit.

As silly as it might sound, I always have a certain level of suspicion when a company doesn't release their stuff under a gpl license .

This truly makes qt and OPEN platform, and as far as I'm concerned gives a green light to using it inside my company.

Re:Greate news!

[pembo13]

The summary implies at least that it was under GPL2 before. So what problem did you have with it then?

Now for usability...

[adamkennedy]

Great, now if they could just maintain all their language bindings properly so those of us in non-C land could actually use Qt, we'd be home.

Re:Now for usability...

[pherthyl]

Well Java language bindings are officially supported: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/jambi
Also python is very well maintained: http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/pyqt/
And you can do a lot of scripting with QtScript.

Re:Now for usability...

[Brandybuck]

Jambi is the Java bindings, and is a Trolltech offering. It is very powerful, robust and fast. PyQt is for Python, and is a product of Riverbank Computing (with a licensing model similar to Qt's). It is also of very high quality, and kept closely in sync with Trolltech's offerings. There are also some Ruby bindings in the Open Source community, but I am not as familiar with them.

the question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

is it as open as gnome?

Re:the question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

how many gnomes have you opened, pervert?

Here is the question...

[bogaboga]

...Will Redhat or Ubuntu bite KDE coded using the latest QT? I doubt it myself as I know GPL v3 appears to take more freedom away from developers.

Re:Here is the question...

[pizzach]

I can't remember any more. Is the GPL about freedom of developers or the "the bits want to be free!!!!!!!1111" free? Arg, my head is starting to hurt. Blarg.

Re:Here is the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Will Redhat or Ubuntu bite KDE coded using the latest QT?

why not? unless they're in the business of restricting your ability to modify code by hardware means they shouldn't have any trouble with it.

I doubt it myself as I know GPL v3 appears to take more freedom away from developers.

how so? explain.

Re:Here is the question...

[Chandon Seldon]

Every GNU+Linux distribution (which includes Ubuntu and Red Hat) already ships a bunch of GPLv3 applications. From the perspective of companies that distribute general purpose operating systems, GPLv3 is strictly better than GPLv2 because of the internationalized wording and the "contributors can't screw the community with patents" provisions.

Re:When will N***ERTECH adopt it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Cmdrtaco please ban these people?

Do your research.

[AJWM]

Trolltech first released its Qt toolkit (for X11) under the GPL (v2) back in 2000. The Mac version was GPL'd in 2003 and the Windows version in 2005.

This announcement just means that they're adding GPL v3 to the licensing (it will remain licensed under GPL v2 also).

Re:Do your research.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he can't be bothered to research how to spell "great", why would you expect him to know anything about software licensing?

Re:Do your research.

[BrentH]

Doesn't licensing it under both GPLv2 and v defeat the whole purpose of v3?

Re:Do your research.

[HeroreV]

Sorta. It defeats the purpose when only thinking about the library.

However, since software licensed under GPLv3 can't use code that's only licensed under GPLv2, you previously couldn't write something that used Qt and only release it under GPLv3. This change will allow programs to use Qt and be licensed only under GPLv3.

I hope they still keep their commercial licence

[pembo13]

Those devs deserver their salaries. I would purchase a license for their product for a big project even if it was to be open source.

Re:I hope they still keep their commercial licence

[babbling]

The commercial license is how they make their money. They get their library popular through Free Software, and if someone wants to distribute a proprietary application (eg. Google with Google Earth) that uses their library, they have to buy a proprietary-compatible license for Qt.

I reckon this is one of the more feasible Free Software business models.

Re:I hope they still keep their commercial licence

[oliderid]

Those devs deserver their salaries. I would purchase a license for their product for a big project even if it was to be open source.

I would either subscribe to a premium technical support of some sorts. IMHO

Tha'ts great news!

[zukinux]

in-fact, if you're not familiar with the GPLv3 I recommend you on the GPLv3 quick guide click here
I think you, mr. developer, should be happy as-well.
Good luck and good night :)

Re:When will ***NIGGER***TECH adopt it?

[Anonymous Coward]

trolls are on topic for this article you lowdown filthy nigger.

ron paul 2008

Re:When will N***ERTECH adopt it?

[schnikies79]

Free speech you don't like is still free speech.

It's all or nothing.

yeah, but it's free

[Reality Master 201]

They wrote QT, they want to distribute QT, and they chose terms to do it.

Obey their terms if you want to use their product. If not, find something else or write your own.

You can still use GPL v2 with Qt

[knuty]

The press statement says:
  Qt is already available under the GPL v2 and will continue to be so in addition to the GPL v3.

+5000000000 INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

Centuries in the future people will read these archives and recognize the wisdom of parent poster regardless of shortsighted moderation.

Niggers won't, of course. By then Ron Paul will have dealt with them all.

Vote Ron Paul 2008

"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression.

Slashdot is not a government. It is a privately-owned, for-profit site.

Any dimwit wanting to spew the N-word is free to do so in his own home, on the websites he owns and all over his personal computer. But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners.

There is no good reason not to ban those neo-Nazi pieces of shit.

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot

[bug1]

"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression. ...
But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."

So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even have the illusion of free speech here anyway, so what's the argument over?

-1 moderation is a scarlet letter and is effectively censorship.

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is don't bitch about "rights" if you don't practice them yourself.

Slashdot readers act like they care about free speech, but when they get the chance, they censor it (with a -1). Looks like we have some hypocrites on our hands.

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

WAAAH WAAH someone modded my posts down, and I'm gonna CRY like a BITCH about it!

The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

QT has two different licenses - their open-source license, and their commercial license. This is not a problem - I'm fine with this.

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library. This means that if, like me, you're someone trying to start a game studio looking for a basic windowing library for an editor, you have three basic choices:

* Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it
* Shell out $$$ for the commercial library, whether or not you'll ever need to distribute it
* Use a different library

Obviously I've chosen #3, but I can't help but think that perhaps Trolltech lost a sale there - I probably would have used QT if it had been a viable option, and if I'd ever decided to distribute the editor I likely would have gladly paid the licensing fee. It's a bizarre licensing decision.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Brandybuck]

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library.

Nonsense! You can use the commercial version to write BOTH commercial and Free Software.

Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it

Not entirely correct. Their GPL license includes disclaimers for several common Open Source licenses. You still need to open your source, but you are not limited to a single license.

As for the future of your app, decide before you start which license you will be using. It is not fair to the Qt developers (who get paid from license sales) to "cheat" by developing under the Free Software license and then switching to the commercial license when you release it.

You may use the GPL version for training and learning the library. And there is an Evaluation license if you wish to evaluate Qt for your own project. But when you start the actual coding of your software, purchase a commercial license if you intend for your software to commercial itself.

It's quid pro quo. Do unto Trolltech as you would have Trolltech do unto you.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[pembo13]

This seems like a very common use case, have you contacted them about this?

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[pherthyl]

While you are technically correct (Trolltech say you must start with the commercial version if you're gonna use it at all), realistically that's not the case.
First of all, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. They just want you to buy your licenses early, but its not like they could do anything about it if you don't.
Secondly, it's not like they're going to refuse to sell you a license when you want to buy one, because you now decided to make your program closed source.
Thirdly, they won't ever find out.

So just start your project with the GPL version, and if it turns out you need the proprietary license down the line, go buy it. Qt is an amazing toolkit, and it's well worth the money.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[filbranden]

Actually, you can develop all your software using the GPL version (without distributing it) and then decide to distribute it under a commercial license.

The GPL actually requires that when you distribute a software you distribute the source code with it.

If you never distribute the software developed with the GPL version of Qt, you'll never have to give away your source.

When you have the finished version ready, you may purchase Qt license and distribute it commercially as closed source or anyway you want.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[JohnFluxx]

> First of all, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. They just want you to buy your licenses early, but its not like they could do anything about it if you don't.

Um, they could simply refuse to sell you a license.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

I think you're missing my point somewhat - I can't, as a small developer who doesn't even know if his software is going to be released commercially, start coding now and then purchase a license later. I'm a small game developer and my editor may be of no interest to anyone but me. But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.

Why should Trolltech mind if I bought a license later rather than sooner? They're still getting the license. One way just forces me to decide much earlier, when I may simply not have the information that I need to determine which is the right course of action. (Which, in this case, turns out to be "don't use QT".)

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dschl]

Ummm.....no.

As others have noted already in this thread, that sort of behaviour is expressly forbidden under the QT licensing. The GPL licensing only applies to open source code developed with QT. If you wish to release commercially, you have to make that decision before you start writing code, and follow their commercial license terms (not the GPL). Their commercial license overview is fairly clear in stating that you cannot legally release commercial code that was developed using the GPL edition.

From Trolltech:

You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its authorized resellers before you start developing proprietary software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a proprietary product.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[kripkenstein]

You are 100% accurate.

Technically speaking, the GPL does only come into play when you distribute, which confuses some people here. So you can write GPL code for as long as you want before distributing it. But the restriction of applying only at distribution time does not apply to Trolltech's commercial license. Trolltech specifically state that a license won't be given if you didn't start paying for it when you started development.

Of course, the Trolltech people are completely in control here: if you offer them more money, they might let you use their commercial license despite starting to pay for it late in the game. But this is completely up to them, and they can charge you whatever they want. It might be all back payments for the entire period of development plus a 50% late fee, or it might be one billion dollars, or your first born's kidney - their choice.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[jopsen]

If you don't distribute during development, there's no way trolltech could know if you did the actual development with the GPL version or a commercial version... Once you want to release it just buy a commercial license and wait say a month and release it proprietary.

This is obviously violating a term of the commercial license. However if you're a small fish with only one developer, there's no way trolltech will know or care for that matter. The term in the commercial license is there because they don't want big companies with many developers to just buy one commercial license. Which is fair enough...

But IMO, if you don't want to release free software don't base your applications on free software libraries! How hard can that be to understand.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

"Just do it, there's no way they could know" is not an acceptable option, IMHO. If they wanted to avoid the many-developers one-license thing, they could simply require one license for each person who had worked on the codebase before the conversion. I'd be fine with that. But they didn't.

As it is, I'm using wxWidgets instead. wxWidgets is basically the LGPL with an added exception, which makes it both a free software library and entirely practical for proprietary software (even more so than LGPL, in fact.)

Free software and commercial software aren't mutually exclusive, and QT is neatly killing an entire segment of the market for themselves (namely, people who later decide they want to close their software). Their choice, but I have to say it's a weird decision.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dbIII]

The choice is that you learn on the free licence, make open software on the free licence, or make your professional commercial application under the commercial licence.

Some people seem to think that writing an open application with the help of others and then closing it off without their consent so you can make money once it becomes successful is a good idea. Personally I do not. If you make money with their toolkit they want you to give them a cut and they have removed the loophole of closing open software or having their product associated with crappy shareware. The sad reality is very few people would pay for the commercial licence if the loophole of closing off and commercialising code written on the free licence was available. I can point at the example of the image viewer "xv" - it used to be on just about every *nix machine whether in a commercial or non-commercial environment but I have never heard of anyone that paid for it.

I've seen far too much crappy commercial software that obviously was written by someone making their first steps learning how to use a language or toolkit (I even got hit by a Y2K bug in some new software last week - in 2008!). Just learn how to use the thing first and then decide if it is worth paying for instead of expecting your first fumbling steps to be worth money.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[bgat]

As for the future of your app, decide before you start which license you will be using. It is not fair to the Qt developers (who get paid from license sales) to "cheat" by developing under the Free Software license and then switching to the commercial license when you release it. How exactly is it that you're "cheating" them, when you choose to buy the license? Isn't that exactly what they _want_ you to do?

I've had more than one project walk away from Qt because Trolltech refused to let them use their proof-of-concept code in the commercial product. Said code was never originally written for distribution--- and was in fact never distributed--- so the GPL didn't apply. But Trolltech's sales force insisted on an interpretation of the GPL that was so overly and inappropriately broad, my client's lawyers told them to walk away from Trolltech. And they did.

The projects in question were too sophisticated to scope without a proof-of-concept implementation, so there was no practical way to avoid investing in a lot of code before pursuing a license.

Among other things, during negotiations Trolltech's sales people insisted that they had the "right" to inspect all the code on my workstation, including code that wasn't developed for the client(s) in question, simply because I couldn't demonstrate that such code _wasn't_ part of the client's project without disclosing it. I called them personally just to verify that, it was so unbelievable to hear coming from the client that I didn't think it could possibly be true.

If anyone is cheating the Trolltech development team of their license revenue, it's their own salesforce trying to strong-arm potential customers.

I like Qt. I think it's a fabulous set of technologies, and the multi-license approach makes a lot of sense. But I won't let Trolltech a$$-rape me in exchange for the privilege of using it in a commercial project.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dbIII]

Two words - evaluation licence.

A commercial project should not be the place where you learn how to use a new toolkit anyway. Have pity on your potential customers and work on a test project first instead of releasing your first steps within a commercial product.

QT is neatly killing an entire segment of the market for themselves (namely, people who later decide they want to close their software)

Perhaps they do not wish to be connected with such a market. RMS gave them a hard enough time over their old licence (better than the X11 one IMHO) and hurt their reputation even after they went GPL. A popular free project closed off and turned into a closed source commercial product could ruin their reputation enough to put them out of business - I don't think they want such a market.

Free software is fine, open source software you sell is fine, commercial software closed source software is fine - BUT you have to decide what you are doing if you are going to base it on somebody else's work.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[shutdown -p now]

They mind because license prices are per developer using it. Otherwise, it's possible to buy just one commercial license for the final build, and use GPL licenses for all devs.

That said, if you can't afford Qt, then you just shouldn't be using it for a commercial product. It's a full featured and very good quality C++ library, and those don't come cheap. There are always other simpler, "budget" alternatives, such as wxWidgets.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

Look more carefully -- you are mixing up the terms of Trolltech and the terms of GPL. GPL says offer the source if you distribute, Trolltech says decide between GPL or Commercial before you develop.

[Off-topic tucked away here: Does anybody else find this new-fangled Tubes 2.0 /. interface annoying? I'm wasting time jumping through hoops clicking and waiting then clicking and waiting then clicking and waiting then dragging to get to see the comments I want -- I much preferred the previous "select once and start reading" toolbar. Actually what I'd like is a "all score 0 and above" button before each subthread so I can keep religious wars and tangential ramblings closed, but quickly open up every subthread which seems to gather the real stuff. And I prefer to see the zero-scorers as well because they may be brilliant AC stuff or just necessary for figuring out the upmodded follow-ups. Like many I don't come here for the articles but for the illuminating discussions -- the community here is the treasure that keeps Slashdot head and shoulders above other tech news sites.]

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

People seem to think that I'm planning on taking their hard work and running away with it. I'm not. The free version and the commercial version are the same toolkit. If someone contributed to my GPL project, I wouldn't be able to close it later. I don't want to steal anyone's hard-earned work. I just want the option to switch to the commercial library later.

It's a game editor. It doesn't have much value outside the game. It does have value with the game, and if I were to release it it'd be as a free addon - however, since it uses a good chunk of the game code internally, and I don't want to open-source the game, I don't want to be forced to open-source the editor also. Therefore a GPL library isn't practical.

If they were GPL-only, I'd say, sure, our philosophies differ, and I'd move on. But they aren't. They're GPL, and commercial - but for some reason they demand I pay now if there is ever a possibility that I would want to use their commercial package. That's weird.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

So why not require one license for each developer who's contributed code to the project, or something similar to that?

I can afford it. I just don't see any point in spending thousands of dollars for something that may turn out to be completely useless to me - this particular subproject started as just a minor thing, and I certainly wasn't about to spend that much money at the beginning. It's evolved since then, and perhaps buying QT would have been the best choice in retrospect, but I'm certainly not going to rewrite it. So QT has neatly gimmicked themselves out of the running - this time at least.

(And of course, now I know wxwidgets a lot better than I do QT, so the cycle will continue.)

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dbIII]

Then it appears your choice to not use it was the best one. If you do not understand the licence that is a very good reason to not use it. I think they are aiming their commercial product at established commercial developers that have spent enough time playing with the free version to know if it is worth buying for their project. I haven't written a qt project but this discussion is really about playing by the rules of others if you want to use their stuff.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Kjella]

Obviously I've chosen #3, but I can't help but think that perhaps Trolltech lost a sale there They probably did, but let me make a counter-example:

1. Big cheap-ass corporation has hundreds of developers working for years making some complex software with the open source license
2. When it's ready for release they buy one license, the Builder(tm).
3. Everyone else gives their source code to the Builder, he links against the commercial library and distributes it
4. Profit!

They could try using other license terms, but then there'd be other dirty tricks like making the Builder a separate legal entity etc. and so they've made it simple - if you're developing code that goes into a closed source Qt product, it must have been developed under a commercial Qt license. Unless it's got nothing to do with the Qt library, otherwise they couldn't use any legacy code or third-party libraries developed without it. And oddly enough it doesn't seem to apply to kdelibs either, which is under the LGPL and yet it appears to be perfectly legal to do Qt commercial + kdelibs (LGPL) + your code, though I don't think the kdelibs have a commercial license. On the whole it's a bit confusing, but the big stick is that Trolltech is the only ones that can give you a commercial license. If they don't think you're playing nice, they can simply not sell you any more licenses.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

I do understand the license, and I am playing by their rules - that's why I'm not playing. My entire point here is that their rules are kind of silly and have kept me from possibly paying them money.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried contacting them?

I am pretty sure if you are indeed a single-man operation, and explain the situation to them, they would allow for an exception.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dbIII]

I do not think you understand it based on your comments. See my other posts.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[MostAwesomeDude]

Um, your complaint is still valid in the face of, say, Torque's engine; you still have to pay up front for a developer's kit, even if you don't make money. What you're saying is pretty much, "Why can't I just grab a free or pirated version of their dev kit, make a game, and then put down money for the actual version if there's some commercial opportunity?" I mean, it works out fine for you, yes, but you're still cheating the company making the toolkit.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Brandybuck]

I am not a Trolltech employee, but I do work closely with them.. I have a commercial license. What you are telling me does not describe Trolltech. Not at all. I have never heard of a workstation inspection. What I have heard instead, is offering waivers for those developers who genuinely did change their mind later on. And I have seen cheaters. I have seen companies release a signficant product two months after purchasing a single license.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[NekoXP]

But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.

Yes you can. If software does not see a public release, it has no license; the GPL explicitly differentiates between private software for your own use and that which is made available to the public. Trolltech make the same distinction.

You can develop the software using the free library, as long as it does not see the light of day outside of your own use. There is no need to license software that will never leave your desktop or be used by anyone outside of your company. If you need to entertain a commercial release, then you can buy the commercial license and recompile/distribute that software with the commercial library.

I know a couple of projects which have especially done it this way; the software used was internal and used the free, non-commercial Qt library built from source. When it was decided to be released, due to licensing of other parts of the software it needed to stay closed source. So a license was bought.. and the software was released. Trolltech, nor any software company, would fault you for not planning to use commercial software, and there is no API difference in the commercial Qt and free Qt which means you must code for one and not the other.

So, don't be stupid. Just code it for free, now, for your own use (the licenses permit this) and then get a commercial license *IF* you see the need for a public binary release at the time. But you do not need to plan that ahead.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

Torque only exists in commercial form - there's no open-source version. If Torque had a "free version" and a "commercial version", but they didn't allow buying the commercial version later, I'd have the same objection. They don't - it's not a similar situation.

Also, most of the big dev packages have trial systems where you can get the code and try integrating it into your system, then buy it if it turns out to work well (I think Havok does, I haven't looked at Torque.) QT has the opposite of that, where if you ever try integrating it into your system you can no longer buy it.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut]

Technically, this violates QT's license. Yes I could do it if I was willing to knowingly violate their license. I'm not.

Take a look at their license, which nobody seems willing to do: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/qtlicensing

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its authorized resellers before you start developing proprietary software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a proprietary product."

So, in fact, any project which did it that way was breaking Trolltech's license agreement. This is not something I'm willing to do.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Breakfast Pants]

I guess the OLPC won't see QT, since no GPLv3 code can be distributed with the laptop (it's anti-theft measures violate the TiVo clause).

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[batkiwi]

Microsoft wins I guess. I can develop under VSExpress 2008 and then switch to a full copy of VS2008 if I want to go commercial and supported.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[pherthyl]

>> Um, they could simply refuse to sell you a license.

Yes I'm sure they would love to miss out on a few thousand dollars.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[JohnFluxx]

In order to set an example, and ensure future income? Sure.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[pherthyl]

And how would they advertise this? I can just see it, on the front page of their website "We deny a paying customer our product, so watch out all the rest of you!"

Bullshit. You don't build a business by turning away paying customers. Trolltech would never deny you a license, because 99% of the time they'd never know, then 0.99% of the time they might know but don't care because a sale's a sale, and they will continue to make money off that customer now that he/she started using the proprietary version. 0.01% left out for the inevitable exceptions.

Denying someone a license to set an example would never happen, because no-one would know of the example because you can't advertise it, and you lose out on an immediate sale, and you get bad publicity ("Those assholes at trolltech screwed our product because of a technicality").

Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[filbranden]

If they port Firefox to Qt, I might consider switching.

Until then, Gtk is the only toolkit that can run everything I need on a computer. I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer, so until Qt can run Firefox and, less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice (KOffice might be a good alternative though) and Gimp (don't know any good one in Qt), I won't install it.

Although Konqueror is a good browser, it's still light-years behind Firefox. Firefox is my bread and butter nowadays, as I suspect it is for many others. I couldn't live with it, and as long as this is true, I couldn't be without Gtk either.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[pherthyl]

I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer

Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you really can't spare the extra ~5mb of ram, what's the issue? You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?

less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice

You do realize that Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL, right? Which means, that your computer has two different toolkits installed! Egad! Quick, uninstall Openoffice!
The only reason it integrates into Gnome is because there is a GTK compatibility layer, just like there is a Qt compatibility layer for KDE.

Not to mention Firefox uses XUL and XBL. GTK can be used to render some interface widgets, but that is minor in comparison.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[filbranden]

You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?

Exactly my point!

Any step I can take to reduce the bloat, I'll take it!

Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL... Firefox uses XUL and XBL...

All of them running over Gtk. If I want to change anything on the interface, I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk, but not on any software using Qt. That's what I mean with "I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer". It hurts much more than it helps.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[pherthyl]

All of them running over Gtk.

Over GTK? No, the exact opposite. GTK is a shell on top (Openoffice also has a Qt shell). And you think that doesn't contribute to bloat? It's worse, because now you've actually got two whole toolkits loaded in memory at any given time. So don't think you're really saving anything.

I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk

Well when I'm running KDE, I change the colours and fonts, and those colours get applied to GTK apps if I tick the box..

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[Psychotria]

How can a comment that invokes such insightful responses be considered "Redundant"?

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[m50d]

Although Konqueror is a good browser, it's still light-years behind Firefox. Firefox is my bread and butter nowadays, as I suspect it is for many others. I couldn't live with it, and as long as this is true, I couldn't be without Gtk either.

Just out of interest, what makes you prefer firefox? I switched to konqueror as my primary browser nearly two years ago and haven't looked back - so much faster and "cleaner"-looking.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[12357bd]

Me too, konqueror has been my default browser for years. There are some websites that require firefox, that's true, but the integration with KDE, makes-it a little better IMHO. The test for me will be the switch to KDE 4, I don't like de file/web browsing separation idea, but i'll give it a try, at least they have provided a toggle to keep using konqueror as the default file browser.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[Ash-Fox]

and Gimp (don't know any good one in Qt)

Krita, it has all those features like true 32bit color support, cmyk etc. that people keep asking for in the Gimp.

Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[MichaelCrawford]

I'm developing a Free Software audio application called Ogg Frog. It will be GPL when it is released, but I'm not certain whether to make it GPLv2-only, or GPLv3-only. I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

I realize that GPLv3 was designed to address a lot of problems such as Tivoization, but in following the debate on the Debian-Legal mailing list, I'm not completely comfortable with choosing version three.

Trying to actually read the whole license to decide for myself just makes my head spin.

Note: there is no software to download yet; there won't be any until the alpha test version is ready.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

Consider very carefully what the actual potential costs and benefits of such a clause are before deciding not to use it.

One of the key advantages to using any version of the GPL is that your code can be combined with other code that was written separately and also released under the GPL. "Version X or later" code can always be combined. When the next version comes out, "Version X only" code will be uncombinable. That basically means that - unless your project is Linux sized and can get away with having its own license - "Version X or later" is the only answer that will allow your project to outlive your personal work on it.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Psychotria]

You can always take that clause out. But as another poster who replied to you commented, this may not be the best solution.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[fyrewulff]

You can always add the clause in later, or take it out later - as long as all the code under that release is yours or all contributors agree.

Example:

you release version 1.0 under GPL2 only.

people contribute to your project, now it's at say, 1.2

At this point, you could re-release 1.0 under the GPL2 + future, GPL3, MIT, whatever. You could do the same with 1.2 if you got all contributor's permission to do so. Technically, people could keep going with the original license, but a branch like that wouldn't last too long on a smaller project.

This is because you automatically copyright your code when you first write it. When you put the GPL on it, you're just putting a license on it for other people to use it - you're not transferring your copyright. You could make the Really Awesome Cool License, and it just says "You are free to use this code in any commercial or noncommercial program, as long as you send an email to my address and include me in your program credits", and that's a legit license.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Hooded One]

The thing that Trolltech did here that I find really cool is that they changed their license to basically say "GPL 2, 3, or any subsequent version we announce approval of." This way they don't hand over control to the FSF (I agree, the thought of doing that makes me uncomfortable as well) but next time there's a GPL update, adding the new license will be much less of a hassle.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be GPL when it is released, but I'm not certain whether to make it GPLv2-only, or GPLv3-only. I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have. Note that "GPL 2 or GPL 3 at your option" is a perfectly viable licensing decision too. It doesn't have to be a choice between GPL2 only, GPL3 only, or any GPL ever.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[F�an�ro]

A simple solution for this is to shorten the time before the work falls into public domain.

Eventually your copyright will expire anyway. If you add a clause that says the source is relicensed under public domain [in 10 years | after your death | something else], then it can always outlive your personal work, before it falls into oblivion.

public domain is compatible with any license.
And if someone wants to use the source under a different license sooner, they can always contact you.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Aladrin]

For v3 versus v2, the only question is: Are you worried that someone will use your application on a piece of proprietary hardware and not let users upgrade it unofficially?

I'm a BSD-license person myself, but if I were worried about making companies give back improvements, I'd be going with GPL v3 with the 'any later version' clause. It really does protect the users as much as is currently possible.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Anonymous Coward]

why will there be ANOTHER version?
gpl2 guaranteed the return of the code changes
gpl3 guaranteed users being able to modify the code
wtf do we need gpl4 for if we didnt need gpl3?
theres no reason gpl2 projects are going to die, all gpl3 is likely to do is stop people caring about licenses and opening up the whole system to abuse!
also if there was a gpl4 and it was written by somebody sensible it will be gpl3 or gpl2 compatible!

regarding ogg projects, if ogg is ever going to be useful its going to need to be used on embedded devices, so if a tiny bit your code for whatever reason, is useful in embedded devices you want it to be used so id go with gpl2 only.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[TheRaven64]

Why are you releasing the application as Free Software? That sounds like a troll, but it isn't. Before you pick the license you want to use, you should decide what it is you want to protect. Start with thinking about putting the code into the public domain and then think of all the things that would enable people to do. Then make a list of all of those things that you wouldn't want them to do and pick a license which respects these wishes.

Reading your site, you talk about the GPL a lot, but it sounds a lot like your frog is just repeating things he heard a GNU say. It's worth noting that you have Ogg in the name of your project (careful with trademarks there), and it is building on top of Vorbis and FLAC, both of which are released under 3-clause BSD licenses. You obviously feel you can benefit from using BSD-licensed code, but don't want to release your own code under the same license. Is this through ignorance or through choice? If it's through choice, then understanding why you made that choice will help you understand which license you really do want.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[maxume]

If it's really important to you that other people not 'misuse' the software(so, Tivoization, etc.), just make sure that all contributed code comes along with a statement assigning copyright to you, or licensing the code to you in some very liberal way. Then, you can release the code under any new license you choose(of course, this doesn't remove your obligations under previous licenses, so if you distribute GPL2 binaries, you are going to need to provide that source under those terms, etc).

If you aren't worried about it, consider not worrying about it and just doing GPL2, or even using a license that doesn't try to make any promises at all about how the code is used, like BSD. Sure, BSD potentially limits you to 'hey neat, my Tivo can rip ogg(vorbis)' instead of 'hey neat, my Tivo can rip ogg(vorbis), and if I wanted to take it apart, reverse engineer the whole system and make some changes, I could', but lots of people can live with that for a gizmo that is there to improve their entertainment experience.

Unfortunately, it's not

[Rix]

KDE is unfortunately out of reach for most commercial developers. Trolltech has taken their pricing off their website, but IIRC it was over $1000 per year, per developer, per platform. It's a nice library, but it's not *that* nice.

Gnome uses the LGPL where appropriate to allow commercial development on it's platform.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[that this is not und]

Is there still the 'trapping' clause where if you develop something using the GPL'd version of Qt, it's impossible for you to later buy a QT developer's license and do something closed and commercial with the code you've already written? (whether or not you ever released it) That clause ends up 'trapping' people who code something and never release it to anybody, but then later elect to make it something commercial. I imagine (not knowing of cases directly) that it's kept more than one person/organization from buying that $1K per year developer seat after doing some playing around/coding with the free suite.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 per year per developer per platform isn't that much money in the commercial world, except maybe for very small companies. Typically most of the codebase will be developed on one platform, and the other platforms are built by a script that pulls the code out of source control and runs the build. That script will need a license, though. Then a few people will have two licenses (main platform + others) to debug.

If you have 100 developers, each with a commercial license, that's $100000 a year, which (in most places) won't even pay two more developers.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[oever]

The copyright on your code remains with you. You can release under as many different licenses as you like. If you use third party libraries, the license you release your code under must fit to the licenses of the code you are linking to.

Searching the google web index with 'qt' and 'trapping clause' gives me one result that talks about cobol and quicktime.

Trolltech has stated that they disapprove of developing using the GPL version and buying the commercial license just in time for a release. There is, however, nothing they can do about such practices.

If you really want to avoid paying the licenses for your commercial application there are plenty of ways of avoiding a legal requirement for paying them. You can, for example, build a thin, GPL-ed GUI that calls a closed application over IPC.

Or you can have one GUI developer that links to a library. In that case you are force into using a sound architecture and you need to buy only one license.

In short, I think the concept of a 'trapping clause' is FUD and I would like you to back up your statement with some references.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[Hooded One]

How would that "trap" those people? I don't know the all the legalities of code licensing when you don't release anything, but on a practical level, how would anybody know?

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[makomk]

From http://trolltech.com/company/about/businessmodel:

"Please note that it is necessary to choose either the Open Source or Commercial license at the outset of development. Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start developing proprietary software using the Open Source edition."

and from http://trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/182/:

"Can we use the Open Source Edition while developing our non-opensource application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?

Answer:
No. Our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the commercial license agreement. They do not apply to code that was developed with the Qt Open Source Edition prior to the agreement. Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as Open Source software."

Re:Unfortunately, it's not

[oever]

But does Trolltech have any way to enforce this? It seems they do not. They even say:

Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as Open Source software.

Why must the code be released at all? Trolltech cannot force people to publish code. Please show me a license clause from the the commercial license that confirms this.

No!

[Rix]

The LGPL allows you to *link* code into commercial products. You still have to release the LGPL'd code, and anything you've added to it.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

The LGPL allows you to *link* code into commercial products. You still have to release the LGPL'd code, and anything you've added to it.

(1) Since the LGPL code is already released, it is not going to hurt you at all to re-release it as you used it if you didn't change it much.

(2) If you changed it a lot, why did you use LGPL code in the first place, and then put your precious jewel's "IP" into it? Why didn't you just write your own in the first place?

The lessons here are: (a) don't ever merge any of your IP intermixed into GPL or LGPL code. (b) Always link, and preferably link dynamically. (c) If you can possibly do it, leave the GPL or LGPL code strictly alone. Keep any of your own "IP" in your own code. (d) If you do desperately need a small change in the GPL or LGPL code ... then just republish the changed code. It won't hurt you to do that because it was only a small bit of code you changed, and the vast bulk of it was already published anyway.

Sort of

[Rix]

As a user, I want a wide variety of software on the platforms I use. Pure GPL platforms preclude almost all commercial development, and BSD platforms don't stay free (hello, OS X).

A balanced approach with LGPL libraries and GPL platforms allows the best of both worlds.

GPL can be anti-freedom too

[plierhead]

You may, but most users could care less what license their new shiny thing uses, as long as its free. They just use it.

GPL can totally be used against the causes of freedom.

I build a shiny widget, and release it under the GPL. Lots of people use my shiny widget - it becomes the gold standard for shiny widgets. Then some software house cuts a huge deal for software development with [insert name of immense multinational here]. The only trouble is, they need a shiny widget as part of the code. And damn, your one is the standard.

They come to you, and boy, you have them over a barrel. Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

If you had released your code under BSD this scenario can't happen.

The proponents of GPL sing a great song about freedom - but more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control the GPL reserves for them, and they love it.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[chromatic]

Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Sam Douglas]

more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control copyright reserves for them, and they love it. It is not limited to the GPL.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[debatem1]

This is supposed to be a bad thing, I take it? As I see it, the alternative for the software house would have been to just release their code. Open source, or pay up and fund future open source development. Seems like a pretty big win-win for the community to me.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

Challenges for you:

(1) Name one real-world instance where this has happened and unreasonable demands have resulted.

(2) This can only happen if the "widget" forms a major part of the "new project". See the definition of "derivative work". A work is a derivative work, under copyright law, only if a later work includes as a major part an earlier copyrighted work. So then, this scenario can only happen if: (a) the widget is included in the new project, and (b) the widget forms a major part of the new project. Please explain then how it is in any way unfair that an original author should demand some money if his/her work is to (a) be included in a new proprietary project, and (b) forms a major part of that project.

(3) Please explain exactly how "the GPL can totally be used against the causes of freedom". The widget was originally released under terms where anyone can use it (as in run the widget's code). How is it not a violation of those terms for someone to re-release it "hidden" as the major piece in a newer product, not pay the original author his fair dues, yet charge the end-user public for the use of the new product? How is doing this not a total "rip-off"?

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Simon Brooke]

I build a shiny widget, and release it under the GPL. Lots of people use my shiny widget - it becomes the gold standard for shiny widgets. Then some software house cuts a huge deal for software development with [insert name of immense multinational here]. The only trouble is, they need a shiny widget as part of the code. And damn, your one is the standard.

They come to you, and boy, you have them over a barrel. Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

Great imagination, laddie, shame about your grasp on reality.

The maximum value of any piece of software is what it would cost to do a clean-room reimplementation from scratch. Remember that a lot of the original GNU software was clean-room reimplementations of pre-existing UN*X utilities. On the whole it's always easier to do a clean-room reimplementation than to build the original system, because the re-implementors have a complete functional specification and a working prototype to test against.

In the past I've needed bits of commercial functionality which weren't available open source, so I simply reimplemented them from the specifications. It isn't hard to do - and it isn't hard to do the other way round either. So, sure, if you spent $1.5M equivalent in programmer hours developing your implementation, you might just get your $1M license fee. If it's something you knocked up in a weekend, they'll pay a programmer for a weekend.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[arose]

We call the shiny widgets "Windows" and "Office" and they are not GPLed.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[fwarren]

The proponents of GPL sing a great song about freedom - but more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control the GPL reserves for them, and they love it.

On the other hand. If you want to sell your software in a traditional manner and not give out the source code to the end user. You can do that as well. There are just some conditions you have to follow.

There is a price to be paid to use software that is free. Free in the sense of "I wrote this so others can use and improve it. If you want to use it, you must give others the same benefit I gave you". You can't really cry "Boo hoo. Those GPL'd tools and libraries are so AWESOME. They were given to me free on the condition that I would use them that way myself. Now I want sell my code and have to play by their rules."

If you don't like the terms of the GPL. You can always use those awesome LGPL, BSD or closed sourced software libraries out there.

And yes, the GPL gives me the freedom to sell you the privilege of using my software in a non-GPL manner. That is of course assuming that I built it in such a manner that is does not rely on GPL software itself. So if someone can build that "golden widget" as GPL software without the need of statically linking to GPL code. Then more power to them.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Dr. Evil]

There's a third option. Use Gnome.

This means that it hurts the community by fragmenting the desktop.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[debatem1]

Qt != KDE.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[msuarezalvarez]

Using gnome hurts the community?

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[vandan]

So what? The same could be said of closed source software. The key difference is that your poor, downtrodden company CAN use the open-source widget for FREE, as long as they obey the terms of the GPL. If they don't like the terms, then they are free to write their own widget. I don't see the problem here. Perhaps you didn't think this though?

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Dr. Evil]

What's your point?

http://enterprise.kde.org/faq/#WhatcostsareinvolvedinusingKDEasacommercialdevelopmentplatform

"However, the KDE libraries rely on the Qt library. Thus you will probably need to obtain a license of Qt from Trolltech."

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Dr. Evil]

No. It's my opinion that dividing the efforts of development over more than one desktop environment hurts the community.

Trolltech is not a charity. They're a commercial interest which is using the GPL and KDE to promote the use of their library. Their for-profit motives directly caused the fragmentation of the Linux desktop.

The only reason they adopted the GPL was to slow the Harmony project, satisfy Debian and to retain their potentially lucrative position in the Linux desktop marketplace. Their continued use of the GPL instead of the LGPL discourages closed source and dual licensed apps from targeting KDE. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but that it *discourages* it without explicit licensing or special agreements.

If you don't care about closed source or dual licensed apps, then that's a difference of opinion. I personally think they're vital for Linux to be a success on the Desktop.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[debatem1]

Just saying that you can run Qt apps on Gnome, too.

No Shareware for Qt/KDE

[Yahma]

As the developer of an Open Source package based on GTK called LiarLiar, I am very pleased that Trolltech decided to offer the Linux community such a powerful and easy to use toolkit; however, I chose to use Gtk+ because I may decide someday to release a Shareware version of my application. I receive nowhere near enough income from my app to even pay 1/10th of the license fee and I suspect many other developers are in the same boat. While the big commercial developers can afford a license, the thousands of small shareware authors would never be able to justify the license fees to be able to release their software. Thus, they will end up sticking with the windows API's.

Now if Trolltech decided to release Qt as LGPL, that would make cross-platform development of many shareware applications possible, but would likely hurt Trolltech's bottom line.

---
Top 10 Business/Legal Websites | Top Anonymity Websites

Re:No Shareware for Qt/KDE

[Vexorian]

I am not sure shareware is too profitable regardless of the license, something tells me good open source projects that live on donations do much better than shareware, I actually thought/hoped shareware was dying...

Re:No Shareware for Qt/KDE

[dbIII]

Look at "xv" for how shareware does under *nix. If people are not prepared to pay for shareware that was at one time on nearly every *nix box I think it is unlikely they will pay for yours no matter how good it is. It's not the MS windows world where shareware is sometimes the only solution to a problem so people are not used to using it or paying for it.

Giving away something for free and then changing the rules in midstream is regarded as bad form in a lot of situations. I don't think you'll get much respect for that point of view here.

Re:No Shareware for Qt/KDE

[makomk]

It doesn't matter if you have the cash to pay for a commercial Qt license; if your app has been developed using the GPL version of Qt, the commercial license forbids you from using the commercial version of Qt with it.

TROLLtech?

[Carbon016]

Does Slashdot contract them out for the comments section or something?

Compatible with EPL?

[PJPoon]

If GPL 3 is compatible with the Eclipse Public License, does this mean we'll see a SWT Qt port anytime soon?

Re:Compatible with EPL?

[Hooded One]

The EPL is already in Trolltech's license exceptions, so such a thing would have been possible before. Well, since August, as a quick Googling suggests that's when it was added.

Re:Compatible with EPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

SWT/Qt has always been possible because of the QPL option in Qt's multi licence model.

If there is no such implementation it is out of lack of interest, not because of a licence conflict

Yes it is

[Rix]

Adobe Flex was $500 (last I looked, $250), the mid range Visual Studio is about $500, and significantly less for volume licenses. Both come with fairly high class IDE's as well.

QT is a fringe library, even on its primary platform, doesn't include an IDE worth using, costs significantly more, and has onerous licensing terms. No one else makes you register your developers.

The end result is that it's nigh impossible to use QT in a commercial setting. How are you going to explain all these ludicrous restrictions to your boss?

Re:Yes it is

[lloydchristmas759]

Adobe Flex was $500 (last I looked, $250), the mid range Visual Studio is about $500
Last time I checked Visual Studio was not a multiplatform development environment, whereas Qt is.
And come on ! How can you compare Qt with Adobe Flex ?

Re:Yes it is

[jonbryce]

Visual Studio can develop software for Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows 2008, Windows Mobile 5 and Windows Mobile 6. How many more platforms do most people want?

Re:Yes it is

[Hal_Porter]

Stuff you build on Visual Studio works on 90+% of the computers in the world. For most people, that's enough.

Re:Yes it is

[lloydchristmas759]

Again, last time I checked, Windows Vista was not a platform but an OS. The platform here is Win32. Similarly, Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbons is an OS, whereas Linux is a platform. Concerning Windows Mobile 5/6 (forgot 2003) these are OS. The platform is Windows CE. So to be exact, VS2005 supports only two platform, where Qt supports X11, Mac OS X, Windows (Vista, 2003, XP, 2000, NT4, Me, 98 !!!), Linux Embedded and Java, i.e. 5 different plaforms. GNU/

Re:Yes it is

[lloydchristmas759]

Stuff you build on Visual Studio works on 90+% of the computers in the world. For most people, that's enough.
Yes, and 640k ought to be enough for anybody!

Re:Yes it is

[Hal_Porter]

Bad analogy, dude. A Windows app will run on 90% of computers. I can use MFC, API, .Net or a bunch of alternatives. It's very easier to hire people who know this stuff. I need to test it on XP, Vista and maybe 2000. That's quite doable. I actually have three laptops with those OSs on them.

If I buy myself a couple of Macs, Intel and PPC I can get another 6%. But that 6% is very, very expensive since I have to choose a portable development environment and class library. There are lots of these, but they all suck in various different ways. I also need to test on twice the number of platforms. And I need to chuck away any old Windows only code and rewrite it from scratch for the new library, which is probably much less mature than the Windows only library I'm moving away from.

Now a truly portable application will run on 100% of computers. But I need to test on probably hundreds of platforms, all with negligable market share. Suddenly something which a small team could do for Windows only do requires a huge infrastructure of testers and developers. And good luck convincing people releasing a desperately urgent bug fix on the majority platform to test on hundreds of others that they don't care about because they don't have any market share. And good luck trying to sell commercial, closed source software to users of 'free as in freedom' OSs.

Now there's a pattern here. The effort I expend on going from running on 90% market share to 96% is probably at least double the effort for 90% market share. And the effort to go from 96% to 100% is probably much, much worse. It's the law of diminishing returns. That's why the vast majority of software houses support the current version of Windows, the previous one and maybe the one before that. Because the alternative is to spend a fortune making stuff portable and get almost no additional benefit.

I've actually worked for companies making embedded systems that supported two platforms. And it's just not sustainable in the long run. If only support one you save a fortune. And if one of them has 90% market share it's pretty obvious which one to keep.

Re:Yes it is

[lloydchristmas759]

And your point is ?

Developing and maintaining a multiplatform app is long and expensive? Yes, it is! But is it more expensive than writing one app per platform? It depends. Would you say that it is silly to have the Apache web server running on several platforms? I wouldn't...

Now you are talking about 90% market share and then embedded systems. MS indeed has a 90% market share on the desktop, but not on servers or embedded platforms. There the market is much more balanced.

So again, Yes, Qt is useful in numerous cases and no, Visual Studio is not the panacea, although it does a rather good job in a lot of situations.

Re:Yes it is

[ciggieposeur]

The effort I expend on going from running on 90% market share to 96% is probably at least double the effort for 90% market share.

Within the consumer market (e.g. games) you're absolutely right. But the consumer market is also notoriously difficult to break into. Your code may be able to run on 90% of desktop/laptop computers out there, but how will it stand out against the dozens of similar products in the same space? Code that is multi-platform has the ability to find money in multiple less crowded markets, and for some business plans that mayt be good enough.

Re:Yes it is

[jythie]

Depends on your target.
If you are developing embedded stuff, which is what GPLv3 address, then that 90% really does not matter one way or the other.

NIGGERTROLLERS are the future, old man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your paradigms have been smashed to bits. The bits have been jumped on.

Welcome to the postmodern. Niggers on parade.

Re:NIGGERTROLLERS are the future, old man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just as long as you don't cut yourself on them we know what you kids are like! Just dont call me honky ok? because im like, white and that would cut me you know? almost as much as it would being called a nigger if i was black,which is to say not at all really;).

Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[innocent_white_lamb]

I am not comfortable with having Trolltech set themselves up as the gatekeeper/toll collector for closed-source software on any platform. Even Microsoft doesn't get to collect extra fees for commercial software development on Windows.
 
GTK is much better suited for a general-purpose library on Linux than QT simply because it allows you to develop "anything" using it.
 
I have no problem with Trolltech using their current scheme to make money -- more power to them. However, I do have an objection to supporting their attempt to make QT central to Linux software development.
 
I avoid QT, except when using software that someone else wrote using it. I use GTK and ncurses when writing my own software.

Re:Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[muuh-gnu]

> Even Microsoft doesn't get to collect extra fees for commercial software development on
> Windows.

They recoup it by collecting extra fees for using windows. (_Both_ from you and all users of your software.)

> GTK is much better suited for a general-purpose library on Linux than QT simply because it
> allows you to develop "anything" using it.

The only difference is that GTK allows you to close code up and sue your users who share it with other people. Kinda weird for a "free software" library to faciliate proprietary lawsuits.

>However, I do have an objection to supporting their attempt to make QT central to Linux
>software development.

They dont make it more "central" than any other toolkit out there.

Re:Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[K9-Cop]

I agreed with you at first, but then realized you are trying to get something for nothing. Why would someone give you a development environment for free, so that you can turn around and sell the software derived from it? This rarely happens. Not in Windows and not in Linux. Trolltech is offering pretty much the same terms as every other similar product. Borland, for example, had free C compilers available, but you were disallowed from using them for commercial products. So you have three choices: 1) Pay for the commerical license so you can sell your software commercially, 2) Don't pay, and then give your software away, or 3) Don't pay, and then try to sell support for your software like Red Hat.

Re:Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[innocent_white_lamb]

With regard to "a development environment for free", see gcc for a perfect example. It's a free compiler that anyone can use to create any kind of software that he wishes to create.
 
My "problem" with QT is simply that if, in time, KDE becomes the default desktop environment on Linux and Gnome withers away for some reason, then Trolltech becomes the gatekeeper to commercial desktop software development on Linux, and nobody who wishes to develop that sort of software on Linux will have any choice other than to pay them whatever fee they decide to ask for.
 
On Windows, you can purchase a copy of the operating system and use any of several compilers (some free, some pay-for) and create commercial or free software to your hearts content without having to give more money to Microsoft. The amount that you pay for your operating system remains the same regardless of what kind of software you choose to write.
 
Again, Trolltech's licensing scheme attempts to set them up as the toll collector for software development on Linux, using GPL QT as a "hook" to reel in software developers and get them to use their toolkit. "It's free now, but you will have to pay later." They are well within their rights to do that, but I see no reason to support their effort.

Re:Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[innocent_white_lamb]

They recoup it by collecting extra fees for using windows. (_Both_ from you and all users of your software.)
 
The price that you pay for your copy of Windows is exactly the same, regardless of whether you are a "user" or a "programmer".

Code written by me using stdio.h is my code to license as I please. Code written by me using GTK is my code to license as I please. Code written by me using QT is no less my code, too, but I can't license it as I please. Therefore, GTK is a much more free and versatile library to write with than QT, regardless of whether you are writing free or commercial software.
 
  Kinda weird for a "free software" library to faciliate proprietary lawsuits.
 
I agree. It would be very weird to be sued by Trolltech for using the library that provides the back-end services for a standard desktop environment on your operating system of choice, wouldn't it...
 
  They dont make it more "central" than any other toolkit out there.
 
KDE is based around QT, and it's one of the big two standard desktop environments. Your definition of central differs from mine.

Re:Gatekeeper to commercial closed-source software

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of your last FUDish paragraph (just remember that Trolltech had to decide about using GPLv3 on this one) I think you are a serious retard, please try to stop calling other people zealots just to make your point look better.

A developer linking his code to a library is not a user, sorry but your point is void now.

Good move

[rinkjustice]

Now if they can do something with their name... "Trolltech" sounds problematic, esp. in a tech industry.

Re:Good move

[10Ghz]

Yes. because names like "Yahoo!", "Google" and "Apple" sound a lot more serious....

Re:Good move

[dbIII]

They can say they are not trolls - many have "troll.no" on the end of their email addresses :)

Almost as cool as having "x.org" on the end.

Misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

In case of libraries, LGPL >> GPL. Why? Because commercial applications won't use GPL libraries. Period. Just imagine if gaming libraries were GPL. Nobody would use them. Oh, look, almost nobody uses them anyway! Most PC games require DirectX.

It's basic economics. If software makers have to choose between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library that they can use without being forced to release their code, guess which one they'll choose? The losers are going to be the end users. So much for freedom.

The GPL applies ONLY to (1) code which is GPL, and (2) code which is derived from code which is GPL.

In this context, "derived from" comes from the meaning under copyright law (since the GPL is a copyright permission).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
"In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work."

OK, so if you write your own code, then it is yours ... and you may license it however you wish to. If, however, your work "includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work" then your work is a derived work of that original earlier work, and you are obliged under law to respect the copyrights of the earlier author.

When you link to other code, there are basically two ways to do it ... dynamic linking, and static linking. Dynamic linking is OK, your work does not include the code that you linked to, it merely "references" it. Static linking, however, means that your work actually includes the code that you linked in. You have now made a derivative work of the earlier work, and you must respect its copyrights.

So ... all of that means that you only have a problem if you statically link to code which is GPL code (not LGPL, that is OK as LGPL has relaxed permissions in this aspect) ... and even then it is only a problem if the functionality of the linked-in code forms a major part of the end work. Then, and only then, does your own code also need to be GPL.

So all that you have to do, if yo don't want your code to have to be GPL licensed itself, is not to include GPL code as part of your work ... so don't statically link in someone else's GPL'd code. LGPL is OK, dynamic linking is OK, and statically linking to LGPL code is OK ... just avoid statically linking to GPL.

You will find that the vast majority of libraries in Linux that you may wish to link to are LGPL.

If software makers have to choose between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library that they can use without being forced to release their code, guess which one they'll choose?

Definitely the magnificent library if it were actually LGPL'ed (as is most likely). Probably the magnificent library as well even if it were GPL'ed, as long as they make sure that they only dynamically link to it. The only difficulty would then be if that library was not already available and installed on the target system.

If they are targeting a crappy end platform where the magnificent GPL'ed library was not likely to already be installed, then they might be forced to consider using the crappy library instead.

Re:Misguided

[KDR_11k]

One thing we (modders of the Spring Engine) have been wondering about is:

We make a mod. This mod is essentially a renamed ZIP file containing a bunch of data files (sounds, graphics, key-value lists and some custom scripting launguage that is compiled into bytecode) and some Lua code. Now if some of that Lua code is GPLed, how much does that affect? Some say it affects only the respective Lua files. Some say it affects all Lua within the archive. Some say it affects the whole archive. Which is it? I'm thinking the GPL would affect the whole archive but noone's really sure. I've even seen the idea that all development files for the data files must be included (e.g. PSDs for images, .blends for 3d models, ...) but I doubt that's really necessary. How does the GPL handle non-code data? Is an archive that acts as a work when dropped into a certain folder still a mere accumulation?

Re:Misguided

[Spy der Mann]

You will find that the vast majority of libraries in Linux that you may wish to link to are LGPL.

Not Qt, unfortunately.

Re:Misguided

[hairyfeet]

That is a very good question. Now I know this will probably be modded flamebait, but it really is just an honest question-why can't we come up with a middle ground? Now I know that GPL3 was written partly to cover the "Tivo loophole" where companies can use GPL in apps and refuse to give back. Now my question is this-why can't we come up with something in between?
The way I would envision it is something like this- a company would be allowed to use GPL in their proprietary app for a set period of time, say 3-5 years, whatever the community agreed upon. At the end of that period the company would have to give the source code for their original app (or original specs if it is hardware) as GPL. To protect against cheating or the company going out of business before the time limit the code could be put into escrow until the agreed upon date.

The way I see it this would help both sides in the long run. It would give startups a good reason to use GPL code while giving them a chance to get their business off the ground and it would keep a steady stream of fresh code and ideas flowing into the community. I am sure that someone who knows more than I can point out flaws in the idea, but that is the point-to work out the flaws and come to a mutually beneficial arrangement. It just seems to me there ought to be a middle ground that would help both sides without locking horns.

What got me to thinking about it was the previous poster talking about mods, which reminded me of how many of my favorite software and games are useless now because they were proprietary and written for software/hardware long dead. With the short shelflife of most software I'm sure that there are plenty of startups which would go for a deal like this, while giving us a chance to not only recompile for newer/alternative platforms once the time was up, but to also use the code in our own projects.

Anyway it just seems to me we could find a way to find a common ground between free everything and locked away forever. And I know someone will say something like BSD, but that puts us right back in Tivo land where they can take without giving back. Something like this could at least give us a way to start a dialog between the two camps without the confrontational aspect that has been in the forefront lately. Anyway that's my 02c and I apologize about the length.

Re:Misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but if you pay them for a commercial license, you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:Misguided

[jythie]

Not quite.
You can not dynamically link to GPL code. You can dynamically link to LGPL code, but you still can not statically link.

Re:Misguided

[jythie]

And before not to long, KDE.
Which means KDE is going OFF my system once it integrates the new libraries.

Re:Misguided

[jythie]

To clarify... the Tivo Loophole was NOT about companies not giving back.. Tivo did so.
The 'loophole' was punishing embedded companies that needed a locked down environment for connecting to their network since people want to 'play' with their devices.

False advertising

[Per Abrahamsen]

My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?

It is false advertising. Just like the other day, where I asked a free man to do some work for me. And he asked me in return how much I was willing to pay him. Pay? But he was supposed to be free!

Someone has totally misunderstand the concept of freedom.

Re:False advertising

[killjoe]

>Someone has totally misunderstand the concept of freedom.

That's you.

Re:False advertising

[zotz]

"It is false advertising. Just like the other day, where I asked a free man to do some work for me. And he asked me in return how much I was willing to pay him. Pay? But he was supposed to be free!"

Hey this false advertising thing runs deep...

I went down to the free market the other day but everyone wanted money for the stuff they had on display! Go figure!

all the best,

drew

Re:False advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the GP understood it perfectly. You misunderstood his post. He was making a point by deliberately mixing up the different meanings of free.

Re:False advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

::WHOOSH::

What if RMS sells out: the proxy clause

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a perfectly reasonable response to this. That is that you firstly license under either the GPLv2 or v3 and then leave a proxy who can accept later versions as long as they remain in the same spirit as the GPL so far. It's even included in the GPLv3 how to do this; see section 14.

This has the advantage that when RMS sells out to Microsoft you won't end up with a non free license on your software. Or in other words, it makes no difference at all but makes some people feel good. Actually, being more serious, if someone found a way to take control of the FSF from the free software community, it might become important. At the same time it means that your own death won't make your contributions to free software less available than they would be otherwise.

Re:What if RMS sells out: the proxy clause

[marcosdumay]

"This has the advantage that when RMS sells out to Microsoft you won't end up with a non free license on your software."

RMS can't put your GPLv2+ software under a non-free license, it doesn't matter what GPLv8 or GPLv9 says, your software will also stay available under GPLv2.

The best he can do is put it under a BSD like license.

Re:What if RMS sells out: the proxy clause

[Chandon Seldon]

As marcosdumay mentioned, the worst case with an unrestricted "Version X or later" clause is that the FSF releases a more permissive GPL. With a proxy, the worst case is that the proxy fails to accept future versions of the license that are reasonable.

In one case, your software can be combined with proprietary software. In the other, your software *cannot* be combined with free software. Considering the chances of these scenarios (reasonably low for a malicious FSF, reasonably high for a ineffective proxy) and the harm that would come from them (an incompatible license could make your software worthless, an overly permissive license merely prevents your software from exerting pro-freedom pressure).

Basically, your choices break down like this:

1. You want your code to be part of the GPL commons, even if that means that the FSF has the power to - completely against their nature - allow proprietary exploitation of your code in the future.
2. You want to make absolutely sure that your code will never be exploited by proprietary software vendors, even if that means that it may not be reusable by other free software projects in the future.

Now, my argument absolutely does apply to using the New-BSD or Apache license rather than the GPL. The question is simply if there is value to the idea of copyleft - and if you want your code to be usefully copyleft (which applies reusability), the only rational choices are "GPLvX or Later" or maybe the Artistic License 2.0.

Three things that can stop reverse engineering

[tepples]

The maximum value of any piece of software is what it would cost to do a clean-room reimplementation from scratch. Even a clean-room implementation won't save a developer in the following cases:

• software encumbered by patent law,
• software encumbered by anticircumvention law, or
• software that nearly everyone is presumed to have seen, making it prohibitive for a room to be made clean.

The third item is what made it difficult for Compaq to find good reverse engineers for its IBM PC BIOS cloning project: too many developers of application software for IBM PCs had already read through it, raising a rebuttable presumption of subconscious copying. This also causes trouble for developers of musical works, who are presumed to have heard their competitors' works on commercial music radio: see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

Not opened as such

[Anonymous Coward]

I just gape them a little.

The Xbox runs Windows

[tepples]

You don't pay Microsoft just to run on Windows and use Windows services... shithead.

Unless your product is intended to run on Windows XB, the operating system of the Xbox and Xbox 360 platforms. In that case, you have to get Microsoft's approval for your product before you can even start porting it, let alone sell it.

Or unless your product is hardware, which needs a driver. The Windows logo program costs money to Microsoft and money to one of a select few certification authorities hand-picked by Microsoft (not just any old SSL CA.)

Some free software licenses aren't GPL compatible

[tepples]

From the point of view of a free software developer, LGPL and GPLv3 are both equally free. No they're not. There are plenty of free software licenses on this list that are incompatible with the GPLv3 not because of some core ideological difference but because of some technicality.

The GPL is touted as a ways to "protect" your code

[Britz]

I guess Trolltech believes that this is true. And they can pay expensive lawyers.

It's why KDE will never 'win'

[Rob Y.]

Ok, Ok. I know 'choice is good' and we don't want a winner in the desktop wars. But the dream of a single Linux ABI to target still lives on in some of us. Unfortunately, for those of us who find KDE to be a superior desktop to the other choices, it's never gonna be part of a single ABI.

There will always be commercial apps, and because they don't provide re-compilable source code, they're always gonna want to target a single ABI. And they will always go for a less restrictive license. So, assuming we want those commercial apps, and assuming they'll go with something they can use for free, there will always be GNOME. Not so bad, assuming there can one day be 1 GNOME target and that the various tookits will one day integrate seamlessly. The wildcard is the Mac, because most ISV's would want to target it, and QT would be a natural choice if it were free.

I don't begrudge QT their business model. They are a business, they've made some great contributions, and they want to eat. Well. And why shouldn't they. But their chosen model - free for GPL'd stuff and (relatively) expensive for non-GPL'd stuff - limits their market. It's not as though there aren't other models. Microsoft charges a bundle for Visual Studio, and (more or less) requires it to develop with their otherwise free (to use) ABI. Maybe QT could produce a comparable - but multi-platform - IDE, and make their money selling that. Then the commercial ISV's could use QT without paying for VS too. The problem is that the commercial ISV's have already invested in VS and a lot of Windows-specific code. Unless they really want to target Macs or Linux, it's really hard for them to justify the expense of going portable with QT.

Or maybe some company (IBM - yeah, but why; Apple - yeah, but mustn't risk losing MSOffice; Sun - see IBM) could give the TrollTech'rs a big payday and set QT free (as in Beer). The trick is to find someone who could justify the price by selling lots of hardware. But the server vendors don't care so much about GUI stuff, and the desktop vendors don't sell hardware, except Apple (see above). Google'd have been a good choice if they'd gone with QTopia for their phone platform (though they won't be actually building and selling phone hardware, will they?).

Oh well.

qwerty

[Sithgunner]

qwerty

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You don't understand GPL.

[SanityInAnarchy]

GPL is about taking freedom away from developers, and giving it to users.

It is, and has always been: You may do whatever you want with this software, so long as you never remove that ability from anyone else.

GPLv3 just closes some loopholes in GPLv2, where people could distribute source code, but that source code wasn't enough to let users do whatever they want with the software. Examples are TiVo, software patents, etc. It's really not that complicated, or intimidating, once you understand the core principle.

If you want a license which gives freedom to developers (taking it away from users), check out BSD or public domain. That says: You may do whatever you want with this software, including remove that ability from anyone else. Example: the BSD network stack was ripped off wholesale and included with Windows, as the Windows network stack. But as a user, I cannot modify the Windows network stack, because I don't have the source code to Windows. Had Microsoft chosen a GPL'd network stack, they would've had to GPL Windows, thus giving me more freedom.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Somewhat

[Rix]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with Trolltech's business model in general. The problem is their pricing, which even they are so ashamed of they no longer advertise.

There's no room for the little guy in their scheme. You're either 100% on board and drinking their koolaid, or you're locked out.

If you really don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

whether you are going to make commercial success, release at least your first version GPL.

If your first version doesn't seem to be able to get anyone interested, it won't garner any more if you create a commercial version. If it does, buy a commercial license *then* and then release your next version commercial.

Others can use the abandoned GPL work.

See, if you don't really know, how do you know that buying a commercial license is going to be a waste of money? It's only a waste of money if it isn't a commercial success. But you've just said you don't know...

If you are genuine you're guilty of self-delusion. If not, then Qt picked the right license.

Re:If you really don't know

[ZorbaTHut]

Actually, I don't know because the game - which isn't built on qt in any way whatsoever - isn't finished and I'm not sure what platform I can get it on. If I can get it on XBox Live Arcade, I don't need to release the editor at all. If I can get it on Steam, I'll release the editor as part of the game. If I can't, I'll probably open-source the whole thing.

However, much of that relies on convincing publishers to publish it for me. If it was just my efforts, sure, but it isn't. Big random factors there, especially as it's kind of a weird game with heavy network effects.

Only if the government want it broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the XO is owned by the government and given to the children. The children don't own it. So as long as this is the case, then GPL3 can be used. I can't see governments wanting to officially endorse selling XO laptops instead of using them, can you?

So talk to the trolltech guys

[Anonymous Coward]

and see if they'll take it on.

You'll probably have to agree that your status is as you've said, though they'll probaby give you a developer license that's good for a few months and after that time you'll know if you've got a success on your hands. Then you'll pay for the commercial one.

Alternatively, develop as GPL and if you can't get a buyer, release it as such. If you do, then offer the buyer closing the source code for extra charge (and pay some of that to trolltech, saying something like "It took me two years, so here's money for the commercial product").

If you're lying and you've got twelve developers then they'll likely find out and charge you with a license violation. If you really are the single coder, then the cost of getting the license fees out won't be worth it, but for 12 licenses...

Answer to your question

[MichaelCrawford]

Hi, Sorry it took me so long to respond.

I'm squarely behind Richard Stallman, the GPL and Free Software. I explain why in Why I'm Proud To Be A Dirty GNU Hippy.

Re:Answer to your question

[TheRaven64]

That doesn't really answer the question. What, exactly, do you want to achieve with your license. Write down a set of things you think it would be good for people to do with your code and a set of things you think it would be bad. Then decide why you wrote a long article about how great Free Software and Free Information are and released it under a non-Free license.