Of course the boss' drinking buddy gets the corner office. You didn't actually think that people get promoted because of their good performance did you? If anything, it's the other way around, the bad performers get promoted so they can do less harm.
My gripe with Trolltech is that they give out "advice" to their customers which maximizes their profits at the same time as giving the GPL a bad name. Most notably, they proclaim that you cannot link in-house software against a GPL library.
Yeah, basic research, that's what its called. Not trying to talk down your accomplishments or anything, good on ya, but every time anyone reports research they take on a "any time now we're likely to see [random record breaking product] in stores near you!"
They don't say "propertary software" they say "commercial software". So although they may intend to require only people who are writing proprietary software to buy a license from them, that's not who they say is required to buy a license from them. But more importantly, they can't require that you have done none of your development using the open source edition of their software as they are required by european law to sell licenses to anyone who wants them. So their attempt to place restrictions on people using the GPL version of their software and may in the future want to buy a commercial license are just, simply, not legal.
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 what do you do if you've developed a lot of code using the Qt Open Source edition and now want to distribute it in binary form without source code? Fucks me. I guess you call Trolltech and beg for a license. Maybe they'll give you one if you tell them when you started developing and pay the backdated licensing fees.
The purpose is to force you to buy a license for each developer at the start of development. If you could just buy a license on ship day you would never pay for developer licenses. That would make it impossible for Trolltech to audit you and ensure that you havn't got more developers on the project than you claim you have.
And yes, I'm well aware of european competition laws, that's why I said their business model is not one that is based on legal principles. This may tempt you to ask what it is based on, and the answer is "FUD". They have FAQs that are full of "legal advice" that is blatantly false which scares people into buying a license. Of course, by "people" I mean middle managers, because the programmers don't give a shit, they just wanna use the best cross platform UI library available and, sadly, that is controlled by Trolltech.
the "basic research == future product" meme. For fuck sake. I bet if you were to go back the last 5 years and collect up all these articles and do a little survey of whether or not ANY of these bullshit descriptions of future products have come to pass you would find that NONE of them have. Why? Because if you discover something that could be turned into a product, you don't tell the world; you go find a venture capitalist and make the damn product.
And you pick up the phone and call Trolltech and they say "huh? you want a license to distribute open source code without the source code? We don't sell that." and you patiently explain your situation to them and they say "no sorry, if we offered licenses for that situation people would just develop proprietary software with the open source Qt and then come to us for a commercial license when they wanted to distribute to their customers.. we wouldn't make money for the 3 years that the software was under development. GO AWAY."
Yes, that's right, they actually refer the GPL as "viral" and they're not trolling (pardon the irony). It's their FAQ, so fair enough that they're gunna try to encourage people to buy as many commercial licenses as possible, but this is just out and out lying.
Jesus, are you a simpleton or what? You can't dual license any code you developed against the GPL version of Qt. That means you must have a commercial license of Qt from the very first day you sat down to code your open source app. No-one starts an open source project with the knowledge that they are going to dual license the code when it is mature (usually 3 to 5 years after you start the project). Trolltech's licensing policy is designed to thwart people using the GPL version of their library to do proprietary development, but it, in effect, thwarts all dual licensing of open source software. Of course, this is an unintended consequence, but it comes about as a result of Trolltech choosing an insanely strange business model (charge the developer instead of the distributor) in an attempt to milk money out people earlier on in the development process.
Huh? Why would I want to use GNUstep on *NIX? Then my unix app will look like a Mac app, causing people to engage in number 1 behaviour. Trueth is, to support Linux properly you really need to write on version for GNOME and one version for KDE (gtk+ and Qt respectively). And yes, it is a lot of work, and that's the reason why most people don't bother supporting anything but Windows, but if your market analysis calls for supporting multiple platforms, support them properly, don't do a half assed job with a cross platform gui toolkit.
The problem is your inability to do a small amount of research on your own. From their FAQ:
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.
So say I develop a nice open source app. Someone comes to me and wants a commercial license so they can distribute it without source. I go to Trolltech and ask for a commercial license for their library and they spring this shit on me. There goes my opportunity to fund my open source development. Moral of the story: don't use Qt for open source development if you ever want to be self funding by dual licensing.
One thing they can do, and I don't really know if they actually do, is refuse to sell you a commercial license if they suspect you have been using the open source license to develop an app which you now wish to distribute without source code. In that way they can retroactively enforce their restrictions on the GPL licensed version of their software for that small class of people.
Alternatively, you could just write the UI for your application in the appropriate language for each of the platforms you want to support. Yes, that means writing one in C# for Windows, one in Objective-C for Mac and one in C for Linux. Then use a common core for all platforms. The UI should be seperate from the core anyway, so its not like it is hard to write three seperate UIs. It does, however, mean you can make the app look different on each platform, something that people who use cross platform toolkits claim they don't want, until they actually start getting customer complaints from users who want your app to look and feel like every other app on their platform. Of course, these are usually Mac users, and we tend to just ignore them, so the myth of cross platform UIs continues.
No, the problem with QT is that their business model is not actually based on any legal concept of copyright. Their spin on licensing is that developers must pay a seat license to develop applications which use their library if the resulting product is going to be "commercial". They specifically say that you can't use the open source version of their product to develop commercial software. Then, in the same breath, they claim that their library is under the GPL, which, if you ask the authors of the GPL they will tell you, has no such restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
non-drinker and single obviously.
Of course the boss' drinking buddy gets the corner office. You didn't actually think that people get promoted because of their good performance did you? If anything, it's the other way around, the bad performers get promoted so they can do less harm.
I remember seeing that stuff too, it wasn't basic research, it was research into production of a product. That's the difference.
Again. No, you're wrong. Go read the Trolltech FAQs, they specifically say you can't do what you are suggesting.
I never said anything about a GPL violation.
My gripe with Trolltech is that they give out "advice" to their customers which maximizes their profits at the same time as giving the GPL a bad name. Most notably, they proclaim that you cannot link in-house software against a GPL library.
Yeah, basic research, that's what its called. Not trying to talk down your accomplishments or anything, good on ya, but every time anyone reports research they take on a "any time now we're likely to see [random record breaking product] in stores near you!"
They don't say "propertary software" they say "commercial software". So although they may intend to require only people who are writing proprietary software to buy a license from them, that's not who they say is required to buy a license from them. But more importantly, they can't require that you have done none of your development using the open source edition of their software as they are required by european law to sell licenses to anyone who wants them. So their attempt to place restrictions on people using the GPL version of their software and may in the future want to buy a commercial license are just, simply, not legal.
I agree, unfortunately Trolltech do not:
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 what do you do if you've developed a lot of code using the Qt Open Source edition and now want to distribute it in binary form without source code? Fucks me. I guess you call Trolltech and beg for a license. Maybe they'll give you one if you tell them when you started developing and pay the backdated licensing fees.
The purpose is to force you to buy a license for each developer at the start of development. If you could just buy a license on ship day you would never pay for developer licenses. That would make it impossible for Trolltech to audit you and ensure that you havn't got more developers on the project than you claim you have.
And yes, I'm well aware of european competition laws, that's why I said their business model is not one that is based on legal principles. This may tempt you to ask what it is based on, and the answer is "FUD". They have FAQs that are full of "legal advice" that is blatantly false which scares people into buying a license. Of course, by "people" I mean middle managers, because the programmers don't give a shit, they just wanna use the best cross platform UI library available and, sadly, that is controlled by Trolltech.
I know this. You know this. Everyone on Slashdot knows this. So why do the, *ahem*, "editors" continue to accept stories that propagate this meme?
the "basic research == future product" meme. For fuck sake. I bet if you were to go back the last 5 years and collect up all these articles and do a little survey of whether or not ANY of these bullshit descriptions of future products have come to pass you would find that NONE of them have. Why? Because if you discover something that could be turned into a product, you don't tell the world; you go find a venture capitalist and make the damn product.
again, your knowledge of copyright, or ability to follow a simple bit of logic is clear for all to see.
Yeah, unfortunately they can just refuse to sell you a license.
Our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the commercial license agreement.
That's the important part. You can't get a commercial license if your code has already been developed.
And you pick up the phone and call Trolltech and they say "huh? you want a license to distribute open source code without the source code? We don't sell that." and you patiently explain your situation to them and they say "no sorry, if we offered licenses for that situation people would just develop proprietary software with the open source Qt and then come to us for a commercial license when they wanted to distribute to their customers.. we wouldn't make money for the 3 years that the software was under development. GO AWAY."
Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make non-opensource software for internal use in my company/organization?
Yes, that's right, they actually refer the GPL as "viral" and they're not trolling (pardon the irony). It's their FAQ, so fair enough that they're gunna try to encourage people to buy as many commercial licenses as possible, but this is just out and out lying.
STFU. Dickhead.
Jesus, are you a simpleton or what? You can't dual license any code you developed against the GPL version of Qt. That means you must have a commercial license of Qt from the very first day you sat down to code your open source app. No-one starts an open source project with the knowledge that they are going to dual license the code when it is mature (usually 3 to 5 years after you start the project). Trolltech's licensing policy is designed to thwart people using the GPL version of their library to do proprietary development, but it, in effect, thwarts all dual licensing of open source software. Of course, this is an unintended consequence, but it comes about as a result of Trolltech choosing an insanely strange business model (charge the developer instead of the distributor) in an attempt to milk money out people earlier on in the development process.
Personally, I'll stick with GNUstep; better toolkit, better language, better dev tools and a better license (LGPL).
And looks like ass on every single platform, not to mention the nightmare you have to go through to make a distributable.
you had no legal right to create it
Wish I could get my legal advice from a cornflakes box too.
Huh? Why would I want to use GNUstep on *NIX? Then my unix app will look like a Mac app, causing people to engage in number 1 behaviour. Trueth is, to support Linux properly you really need to write on version for GNOME and one version for KDE (gtk+ and Qt respectively). And yes, it is a lot of work, and that's the reason why most people don't bother supporting anything but Windows, but if your market analysis calls for supporting multiple platforms, support them properly, don't do a half assed job with a cross platform gui toolkit.
The problem is your inability to do a small amount of research on your own. From their FAQ:
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.
So say I develop a nice open source app. Someone comes to me and wants a commercial license so they can distribute it without source. I go to Trolltech and ask for a commercial license for their library and they spring this shit on me. There goes my opportunity to fund my open source development. Moral of the story: don't use Qt for open source development if you ever want to be self funding by dual licensing.
One thing they can do, and I don't really know if they actually do, is refuse to sell you a commercial license if they suspect you have been using the open source license to develop an app which you now wish to distribute without source code. In that way they can retroactively enforce their restrictions on the GPL licensed version of their software for that small class of people.
Alternatively, you could just write the UI for your application in the appropriate language for each of the platforms you want to support. Yes, that means writing one in C# for Windows, one in Objective-C for Mac and one in C for Linux. Then use a common core for all platforms. The UI should be seperate from the core anyway, so its not like it is hard to write three seperate UIs. It does, however, mean you can make the app look different on each platform, something that people who use cross platform toolkits claim they don't want, until they actually start getting customer complaints from users who want your app to look and feel like every other app on their platform. Of course, these are usually Mac users, and we tend to just ignore them, so the myth of cross platform UIs continues.
No, the problem with QT is that their business model is not actually based on any legal concept of copyright. Their spin on licensing is that developers must pay a seat license to develop applications which use their library if the resulting product is going to be "commercial". They specifically say that you can't use the open source version of their product to develop commercial software. Then, in the same breath, they claim that their library is under the GPL, which, if you ask the authors of the GPL they will tell you, has no such restriction.