Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

Digia has announced that existing Qt modules will now be covered under the LGPLv3 in addition to the LGPLv2.1, GPLv3, and the enterprise (proprietary) license. New modules will be dropping LGPLv2.1 and GPLv3+ and be released under the LGPLv3 and GPLv2+ instead. This should be a good move: new Qt modules will be Apache license compatible, LGPLv3 code can trivially be converted to GPLv3, and Digia is even releasing a few modules it intended to make proprietary as Free Software. The KDE Free Qt Foundation is on board. The move was made because of device vendors exploiting a loophole in the GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 that denied users the right to modify Qt or write their own applications. Digia has some self-interest as well, since those vendors were exploiting the tivoization loophole to avoid buying enterprise licenses. From the announcement: We also consider locked-down consumer devices using the LGPL’ed version of Qt to be harmful for the Qt ecosystem. ... Because of this, we are now adding LGPL v3 as a licensing option to Qt 5.4 in addition to LGPL v2.1. All modules that are part of Qt 5.3 are currently released under LGPL v2.1, GPL v3 and the commercial license. Starting with Qt 5.4, they will be released under LGPL v2.1, LGPL v3 and the commercial license. ... In Qt 5.4, the new Qt WebEngine module will be released under LGPL v3 in the open source version and under a LGPLv2.1/commercial combination for Qt Enterprise customers. ...

Adding LGPLv3 will also allow us to release a few other add-ons that Digia before intended to make available solely under the enterprise license. ... The first module, called Qt Canvas3D, will give us full WebGL support inside Qt Quick. ... The second module is a lightweight WebView module ... There is a final add-on that will get released under LGPL v3. This module will give native look and feel to the Qt Quick Controls on Android. This module can’t be released under LGPL v2.1, as it has to use code that is licensed under Apache 2.0, a license that is incompatible with LGPL v2.1, but compatible with LGPL v3.

Comments

About time Quicktime went open source

[NotDrWho]

Good for you, Apple!

*sigh*

[fustakrakich]

Licensing is more complex than program itself. Everybody's getting sucked in to the lawyers' game.

Re:*sigh*

[FireFury03]

Copyleft is just a hack to route around copyright damage. Absent governments enforcing it, we'd all just either release code or not release code and the licensing friction would all go away.

GPL does far more than "route around copyright damage" - its aims are to give the _end user_ freedom, freedom which often wouldn't exist even without copyright.

Lets look at how things work with GPL'd code:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it under the GPL.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B gives C the source, since the GPL says they have to
5. C is happy since he can now modify the code.

(Ok, so it isn't alays plain sailing - B often has to be threatened before they will comply with the GPL; in the case of GPLv2 code, B's product may be Tivoised; frequently devices have a mix of GPL/proprietary code and its extremely difficult to integrate modifications into a device with only the GPL code, etc. but in theory at least this is how it should work).

Ok, so lets look at how this would work if there was no copyright law:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B tells C to piss off because the source is a trade secret and B is under no obligation to release it.
5. C cries.

The GPL relies on copyright law to reach its goals of giving the end users the freedom to do as they wish with their own devices. Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

Re:*sigh*

[Darinbob]

There are sometimes legal requirements to keep the end product unmodified by the end user. Ie, most medical devices in the US must be vetted by the FDA and once released are not allowed to be modified at will by the doctors who buy them, except for customization of course. Similarly some devices that operate under FCC rules may be required to prevent invalid configurations. There are markets where security is an extremely high priority for the customers and signing the software with secured certificates is necessary to even be in the market.

And of course there are all the commercial embedded developers in the middle. They want to use open source but also can not just release their entire source code to the world or allow modifications, because their legal department says no, the executives say no, the board says no, and there are a lot of competitors just waiting to pounce. BSD license is great there because BSD license wants software to be shared, whereas GPL often treats those devs as misguided.

Tivoization

[Meneth]

So Digia doesn't mind if vendors "deny users the right to modify Qt or write their own applications," as long as those vendors pay Digia their tithe.

Re:Tivoization

[mellon]

That's correct. It's one of the more obvious and beneficial uses of GPLv3: anybody who wants to do open source gets to use it for free, people who want to use closed source have to pay, and the company that supports the software gets paid to make it better. Big win for everybody. The only downside to this model is that it requires Digia to hold the copyright, which makes accepting outside submissions difficult.

Re:Tivoization

[Tanuki64]

You make it sound as if Digia would do something ethical questionable. Is this company not allowed to make money with their product?

Re:Tivoization

[Kalium70]

Of course C++ is a weapon. People shoot themselves in the foot with it all the time.

Re:Tivoization

[Darinbob]

BSD license gives the most freedom of all though for developers. And no one can "steal" a BSD product and make it proprietary because the original still exists, the only thing proprietary would be the modifications.

What about OSS license that respects other rights?

[scorp1us]

I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.

Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.

Re:Downgrades

[kthreadd]

GPL and LGPL is not OSS, it's free software which is fundamentally different from OSS. It considers the user to be more free by eliminating the risk that someone will restrict them. It does not consider freedom to restrict freedom as something positive, rather it's negative in the freedom dimension.

GPL is about User/Owner Freedoms

[mx b]

The GPL wasn't designed with freedoms of the developer/company in mind; it was developed with freedoms of the client/user in mind. RMS started the whole thing partially because of his experience with a printer that the company refused to give drivers so he could make it work on his computer (see the section A Stark Moral Choice).

GPL protects the user's right to do what they want with the software once they've received it (either paid for it, or were given it for free - most software these days is free, but the GPL allows the developer to sell it too). GPLv3 was written when it was realized that a loophole was being used to prevent the owner of the device from changing out the software on the device -- a device the owner paid for and of course now owns! How ridiculous to let a company tell you that you are not allowed to tinker/update the thing you now own. So the "TiVoization" clause was added to prevent that in the future.

The GPL is more of a developer's promise that, once you have paid for the software (even if the price was $0), you will be given complete freedom to use the software as you see fit and the developer/seller will not interfere. That promise is made stronger legally with v3.

Re:Downgrades

[Darinbob]

Newer is not always better.
Digia really wants to be fully commercial and are annoyed at people who use Qt without paying. This change is intended to increase revenue and is not motivated by a desire to increase openness. Some commercial users have learned that they can legally and morally use the free version in some instances.

Tivoization is just a bugaboo. I applaud Tivo for using GPL licensed software, it should have been a cause for celebration.