Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the for-making-cute-software dept.

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.'"

9 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I am not applauding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  2. Do your research. by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    -- Alastair
  3. You can still use GPL v2 with Qt by knuty · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  4. Re:Gnome by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    --
    -- Alastair
  5. Re:I am not applauding. by Fry-kun · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
  6. Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too by chromatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    how to invest, a novice's guide
  7. Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too by Sam+Douglas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:I am not applauding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  9. False advertising by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.