Is it right as per provision of GPL, to release source code under GPL and binary as nonGPL. This is the case of `Qcad', a 2-D CAD package. Its version 1.xx was GPL for Linux and nonGPL for MS-window.
With 2.xx version, they say, source is under GPL and on their web-site demo versions are there for Linux as well as for MS-windows, which terminate after every 10 minutes.
Then what sort of GPL is it for source code?
On Friday 03 Sep 2004 9:20 pm, H S Rai wrote:
With 2.xx version, they say, source is under GPL and on their web-site demo versions are there for Linux as well as for MS-windows, which terminate after every 10 minutes.
Then what sort of GPL is it for source code?
It is a dual licence. Binaries are given under a different licence. Similar to QT.
You can compile QT on windows - in fact, there is a project about compiling qt on windows (http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/) which says in the project page: "The port is completly based on the gpl´ed qt/x11 sources in the kde-cygwin cvs by commenting out all X11 functions and filling in the corresponding win32 functions. To avoid licensing problems we only accept contributions from people, who don't have access to the original qt-windows sources."
Similarly, you can go ahead and download the qcad sources and compile it for use without restrictions. It compiles cleanly - I have a source compiled installation for my personal experiments.
So from an users point of view, the value addition that you get for buying qcad, is of getting a packaged version of the software. From a larger point of view ofcourse, paying would keep the company alive, and would ensure that further dedicated development happens on the software.
- Sandip
-
H S Rai -
Sandip Bhattacharya