I couldn't tell from your post if you're aware, so I'll state it just in case. The GPL only requires you to give source to those people to whom you have distributed binaries. So you can sell GPL software and not have to give the code to any random person who asks for it.
It also sounds like you don't recognize the legitimacy of dual-licensing models. Do you support or oppose the LGPL? The LGPL enables companies to use GPL libraries, free of charge, to build closed source software (just like the BSD licenses).
All Trolltech is saying is that if you want to use Qt to build closed source software, then you have to pay for Qt. They don't offer a GPL version for Windows because people were abusing it.
At core is whether or not an application built on Qt is a derivative work or not. If it is, the GPL means you can't build a closed source application on top of. This is a feature that has prevented corporations from using GPL libraries. Hence the LGPL, and dual-licensing in general.
It sounds like you're just mad that Trolltech decided not to go with a "free for commercial use" model like the LGPL.
It specifically clarifies commercial to mean closed source/proprietary. That's the whole purpose of the parenthetical. If that statement is unclear to you (the figurative 'you', not BiggerIsBetter specifically), then you probably shouldn't be responsible for making legal decisions on behalf of a company.
Which sound system? I've only ever tried Suse 9, but it seems to have gone with ALSA by default, with OSS available too, and has esd and arts too, I believe.
Will the EU allow that crap too, or will it realize that Microsoft's largest competitors are likely to be OSS developers and a hundred-grand license would be about the same as not actually releasing it to their competitors?
Even if there is a large licensing fee, don't you think IBM and Novell/Suse, not to mention Apple, would pay it just so they can offer workstations fully compatible with Exchange and Active Directory, or servers that can replace Exchange and Active Directory? I'm salivating at the thought of that.
Seems to me Microsoft might as well start playing hardball here - Drop the price of an Xbox to $0, offer tracks on the new music service for $0.50, charge $10 or give away copies of Enterprise Architect, take a few high profile clients and offer huge discounts for OS and Office site licenses.
Priceless. I take it you don't realize selling everything other than Windows and Office at a loss (bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player into the OS, making them "free") to drive competition out of business is pretty much what landed them in trouble in the first place.
For hard facts see transcripts of the antitrust trials. They will inform exactly which tactics made Microsoft guilty of abusing their monopoly position. Then look at the industry and observe how little has changed. Are OEM computer manufacturers allowed to ship computers with desktop icons for competitors products but not for Microsoft products? Have file formats and network protocol APIs been made freely available for interoperation? Are userland applications still being bundled into core system libraries? Are they using APIs which are not documented and thus not available to makers of competing products?
RAD tools are great for learning how the actual code affects the GUI. It's incredibly helpfull to start adjusting all the options in the RAD tool to see how the generated code changes. I've found that to be way more enlightening than API docs, as you can logically see how you're changing the GUI, then seeing how the code must change to reflect it. Qt Developer is a really nice tool.
They have been using the new file selector in the Fedora Core 2 test1 release, which was supposed to freeze today for the test2 release. Very nice. Hopefully this means GNOME 2.6 will stabilize and be release in time to include them both in Fedora Core 2.
same reason they don't offer free binaries of the base release I presume. People who paid $$$ for the official, supported release wouldn't be too happy if anyone can go download the exact same thing for free. Offering the source free for all goes beyond the GPL requirements, and makes it sufficiently annoying so that licensees won't feel fleeced.
The only problem is that I have had a hard time getting security updates for it, as it seems Red Hat doesn't like to share its updates for free. (surprise, surprise)
Bull shit. Every update is release for free as an SRPM. Just download it, compile it, and install it. The downloading and compiling could EASILY be scripted to create a yum or apt repo.
If you're company has an exchange server they should also have a terminal server in app mode so you can log onto it and run outlook 2k3. Where I'm at, I can do this, but I choose to run evolution instead, if someone sends me a meeting notice, I manually enter into my calendar. Oh the horror of manual entry. Did you ever consider spending $30 to get the Exchange plugin for Evolution? (And yes, it works with Exchange 2003)
Really?! I'm actually planning on getting my dive master cert this summer for exactly that purpose. Although I'll probably end up in Panama since my wife is from there. How far up the cert chain are you?
the music is never really yours to being with. The subscription is not a download model, it's like XM satellite radio, but with more control over what you listen to. The only way to get locally stored audio files would be to crack the DRM (illegal under DMCA) or run an audio cable from line-out to line-in on your sound card (which should be legal under fair use, but probably isn't any more under DMCA).
I'm guessing it would have to be at least a clock, or a text editor, something that actually provides function. The license said the program has to add substantial value.:(
Sections i and ii of the license clause you quote state that you can't distribute the jre/jsdk without an aditional product. So companies who care about such legal issues, like Red Hat, have to write some java app and distribute that, and have the jre/jsdk be included in that package. They would have to make it a part of every package which depended on it. I suppose they could keep two versions of each package which needs it, and the first package would get the fat version. In turn subsequent packages would see that it is installed and get the thin version instead.
Slashdot Mirror
It also sounds like you don't recognize the legitimacy of dual-licensing models. Do you support or oppose the LGPL? The LGPL enables companies to use GPL libraries, free of charge, to build closed source software (just like the BSD licenses).
All Trolltech is saying is that if you want to use Qt to build closed source software, then you have to pay for Qt. They don't offer a GPL version for Windows because people were abusing it.
At core is whether or not an application built on Qt is a derivative work or not. If it is, the GPL means you can't build a closed source application on top of. This is a feature that has prevented corporations from using GPL libraries. Hence the LGPL, and dual-licensing in general.
It sounds like you're just mad that Trolltech decided not to go with a "free for commercial use" model like the LGPL.
It specifically clarifies commercial to mean closed source/proprietary. That's the whole purpose of the parenthetical. If that statement is unclear to you (the figurative 'you', not BiggerIsBetter specifically), then you probably shouldn't be responsible for making legal decisions on behalf of a company.
try as hard as you like, but FreeBSD took all the drama out of failing dying tech companies.
Who changes every file to 0600? I certainly never have, and I've never had a box rooted in 8 years.
For starters Enterprise runs on fancy IBM hardware, and Pro does not.
Which sound system? I've only ever tried Suse 9, but it seems to have gone with ALSA by default, with OSS available too, and has esd and arts too, I believe.
IBM used to sell laptops with Red Hat pre-installed.
Even if there is a large licensing fee, don't you think IBM and Novell/Suse, not to mention Apple, would pay it just so they can offer workstations fully compatible with Exchange and Active Directory, or servers that can replace Exchange and Active Directory? I'm salivating at the thought of that.
Priceless. I take it you don't realize selling everything other than Windows and Office at a loss (bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player into the OS, making them "free") to drive competition out of business is pretty much what landed them in trouble in the first place.
you're the one who emphasized the lack of a transformer.
the "power supply" that the plug disconnects from is a transformer. That's why all you need is "a little plastic doohickey that had accepted my plug."
For hard facts see transcripts of the antitrust trials. They will inform exactly which tactics made Microsoft guilty of abusing their monopoly position. Then look at the industry and observe how little has changed. Are OEM computer manufacturers allowed to ship computers with desktop icons for competitors products but not for Microsoft products? Have file formats and network protocol APIs been made freely available for interoperation? Are userland applications still being bundled into core system libraries? Are they using APIs which are not documented and thus not available to makers of competing products?
RAD tools are great for learning how the actual code affects the GUI. It's incredibly helpfull to start adjusting all the options in the RAD tool to see how the generated code changes. I've found that to be way more enlightening than API docs, as you can logically see how you're changing the GUI, then seeing how the code must change to reflect it. Qt Developer is a really nice tool.
They have been using the new file selector in the Fedora Core 2 test1 release, which was supposed to freeze today for the test2 release. Very nice. Hopefully this means GNOME 2.6 will stabilize and be release in time to include them both in Fedora Core 2.
setting: secret hollowed-out volcano lair
... or is it the snake to my mongoose? I never was good with analogies."
Bill Gates, with pinky held up to lip: "Linux is the mongoose to my snake
same reason they don't offer free binaries of the base release I presume. People who paid $$$ for the official, supported release wouldn't be too happy if anyone can go download the exact same thing for free. Offering the source free for all goes beyond the GPL requirements, and makes it sufficiently annoying so that licensees won't feel fleeced.
Bull shit. Every update is release for free as an SRPM. Just download it, compile it, and install it. The downloading and compiling could EASILY be scripted to create a yum or apt repo.
If you're company has an exchange server they should also have a terminal server in app mode so you can log onto it and run outlook 2k3. Where I'm at, I can do this, but I choose to run evolution instead, if someone sends me a meeting notice, I manually enter into my calendar. Oh the horror of manual entry. Did you ever consider spending $30 to get the Exchange plugin for Evolution? (And yes, it works with Exchange 2003)
Really?! I'm actually planning on getting my dive master cert this summer for exactly that purpose. Although I'll probably end up in Panama since my wife is from there. How far up the cert chain are you?
Do you work in a TARDIS, or maybe a Delorian with a nuclear reactor on it?
laugh
the music is never really yours to being with. The subscription is not a download model, it's like XM satellite radio, but with more control over what you listen to. The only way to get locally stored audio files would be to crack the DRM (illegal under DMCA) or run an audio cable from line-out to line-in on your sound card (which should be legal under fair use, but probably isn't any more under DMCA).
So would you call it an unknown unknown, or a known unknown?
From the license: (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software. I don't think "Hello World" satisfies this clause.
I'm guessing it would have to be at least a clock, or a text editor, something that actually provides function. The license said the program has to add substantial value. :(
Sections i and ii of the license clause you quote state that you can't distribute the jre/jsdk without an aditional product. So companies who care about such legal issues, like Red Hat, have to write some java app and distribute that, and have the jre/jsdk be included in that package. They would have to make it a part of every package which depended on it. I suppose they could keep two versions of each package which needs it, and the first package would get the fat version. In turn subsequent packages would see that it is installed and get the thin version instead.
But they can't distribute the jre/jsdk by itself.