please let me know (see previous mail which may not be put on the linuxusers list) 1. I have Kubuntu LINUX 8.0.4 from CANONICAL (ONLY security upgrades are free from 3 years). 2. How do I install virtualbox on Kubuntu LINUX 8.0.4 or should I say accomodate UBUNTU 8.10 ----- newer linux version --- free and legally for a 10 user organization or even say a 100 user organization ---- read the license below, i have to install it manually it appears to say ---- no sysadmin tools can be used or i have to let each USER download virtualbox binaries from sun and install it themselves. 3. now, my problem. I get virtualbox, I get Kubuntu LINUX 8.0.4 ------- my OLD machine no longer accepts UBUNTU LINUX 8.10. So do I install ANY LINUX which virtualbox supports ---- and then hope that virtualbox supports all the LATER versions of LINUX (including 8.10) so that I can get all the upgrades from the world on the LATER Linuxes and stick to my old tested Kubuntu 8.0.4 --------------------- and have LICENSED copies of Window running under virtualbox.
I mean how much RAM will I end up using on my machine.
Erach
open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox ---- they have to install it THEMSELVES --- please ask sun for clarifications.
What exactly do you mean by personal use and academic use in the Personal Use and Evaluation License? Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have.
Use at academic institutions such as schools, colleges and universities by both teachers and students is covered. So in addition to the personal use which is always permitted, academic institutions may also choose to roll out the software in an automated way to make it available to its students and personnel.
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote:
open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox
is virtualbox foss?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote:
open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox
is virtualbox foss?
Yes. It is under GPL.
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:09:44 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote:
open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox
is virtualbox foss?
Yes. It is under GPL.
then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'?
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:09:44 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote:
Yes. It is under GPL.then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'?
I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product. The details are here.
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:40:49 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote:
then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'?
I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product.
then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to havedual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product.
then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here
It is.
Please don't spread FUD.
Thanks.
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 6:01:12 pm Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product.
then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here
It is.
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
Who claimed that proprietary == foss? Virtualbox is available under *two* kinds of licenses - one of which is GPL. So, where's the problem?
Thanks, jaju
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:01:51 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
Who claimed that proprietary == foss? Virtualbox is available under *two* kinds of licenses - one of which is GPL. So, where's the problem?
the problem is in the hypocrisy of mixing foss with proprietary
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in Debian.
And for your info, Qt is also under dual license.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Kartik Mistry kartik.mistry@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in Debian.
And for your info, Qt is also under dual license.
I avoided mentioning Qt (although I had that in mind) because there's a subtle difference - that of the source-code being not available for the commercial version in one case (ie, VB). Kenneth's primary contention seems to be this aspect (?).
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 8:28:03 pm Kartik Mistry wrote:
Please don't spread FUD.
proprietary == foss? in which language?
Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in Debian.
well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect is the developmental model. If you take Mysql, any contributor to the code has to assign copyright to Mysql. No doubt they pay for it, and pay well. But that cuts down the number of contributors and the quality of contribution. The result is a skewed development model. Although most FOSS projects have just a handful of major contributors, It is the huge number of casual contributors that really make a FOSS project good. I am not talking about the idealogical aspect here - I am just talking about the fact that the FOSS developmental model is the major factor in making FOSS code good and secure - license is secondary.
And for your info, Qt is also under dual license.
I know - which is why I am ambivalent about QT.
2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect is
it is ok to have individual concepts about what is foss and how it differs. But if you have a different idea from what is commonly referred to as foss (Free Software definition from FSF, Debian Free Software Guidelines, Open Source definition - almost all foss passes the three definitions, except for some corner cases like reciprocal license which passes Open Source Definition but fails FSF's definition) it would be better to call it by a separate name to avoid confusion.
You can have KG's foss guidelines and state clearly what constitutes foss according to you.
the developmental model. If you take Mysql, any contributor to the code has to assign copyright to Mysql. No doubt they pay for it, and pay well. But that cuts down the number of contributors and the quality of contribution.
low quality foss is still foss.
The result is a skewed development model. Although most FOSS projects have just a handful of major contributors, It is the huge number of casual
every foss project does not have to follow the same model. As long as it complies with the common definitions of foss - it is foss.
contributors that really make a FOSS project good. I am not talking about the idealogical aspect here - I am just talking about the fact that the FOSS developmental model is the major factor in making FOSS code good and secure - license is secondary.
A project might have a bad development model, but it alone does not make it non-foss.
And for your info, Qt is also under dual license.
I know - which is why I am ambivalent about QT.
As long as we have the choice to take the Free Version, why bother if some one does not want freedom?
- Praveen
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 11:59:09 am Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect is
it is ok to have individual concepts about what is foss and how it differs. But if you have a different idea from what is commonly referred to as foss (Free Software definition from FSF, Debian Free Software Guidelines, Open Source definition - almost all foss passes the three definitions, except for some corner cases like reciprocal license which passes Open Source Definition but fails FSF's definition) it would be better to call it by a separate name to avoid confusion.
none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria. But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect. And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance.
2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria.
So are you telling that Virtual Box, QT, Open Office, MySQL fails this minimum criteria?
But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect.
OK. No problems with that. But just look at the example of Open Office. Sun distributes proprietary Star Office and ownership of any contribution to Open Office must be shared with Sun. Now some people did not want to do that and there is http://go-oo.org/
Where do you stand with respect to Open Office?
License is th enabler for the development methodology. If you don't like the model fork. That is what happened with Open Office, Sourceforge (gforge) ...
And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance.
Are you telling Open Office, QT, MySQL are of lower quality because they are under dual license?
- Praveen
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:56:17 pm Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria.
So are you telling that Virtual Box, QT, Open Office, MySQL fails this minimum criteria?
they dont fail this minimum criteria
But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect.
OK. No problems with that. But just look at the example of Open Office. Sun distributes proprietary Star Office and ownership of any contribution to Open Office must be shared with Sun. Now some people did not want to do that and there is http://go-oo.org/
Where do you stand with respect to Open Office?
I feel it sucks big time - it is an attempt to outdo M$ office, run by a big corporation where probably (I say probably) design decisions are not being taken by the core developers. Since ownership of all contributions have to be shared with Sun, this automatically cuts down the number of potential contributors and probably fully cuts out casual contributors. In my opinion, it *is* foss - but just barely and a good example of how not to do FOSS. This is in addition to my objection to office suites in general which in my opinion is equivalent to employing elephants to transport toothpicks.
License is th enabler for the development methodology. If you don't like the model fork. That is what happened with Open Office, Sourceforge (gforge) ...
And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance.
Are you telling Open Office, QT, MySQL are of lower quality because they are under dual license?
I do not know about QT, but both Open Office and MySQL are of lower quality and I feel that it is largely due to the dual license policy which to a large extent shuts out community involvement in the development process and in decision making. Just compare postgres and mysql and you will see the difference.
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:01, Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves
lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems tohave dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product.
then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here
It is.
Please don't spread FUD.
The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way.
1] The "other" license does not matter to "us" 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS
Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason!
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:20:44 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way.
1] The "other" license does not matter to "us" 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS
Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason!
proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain meet. A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain meet. A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven.
Let's say there are two companies F and P.
F makes Free software and releases it to the world with code. F is happy, and so are users. Then, P comes along and tells F that it has some nice add-on tools for the Free software and wants F to relicense it to P under a different license and gives F some money. F is happy since he earns and gets a chance to support this endeavour further. P has a client-base which is happy to pay for the additional features - sans source for the *add-on* tools.
Why can't we be friendly with F? F *owns* the software, and it's entirely F's prerogative to sell it under another license too.
And if you are so unhappy, take the Open version and fork. But I don't see that having any meaning, as the source-code is already GPL'ed. Unless it's the GPL which is a source of concern to you.
What am I missing in your arguments?
Thanks, jaju
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
What am I missing in your arguments?
Oh, and did I mention: VirtualBox is *awesome*! I run OpenSolaris and Windows XP on it - without leaving my GNU/Linux desktop. And not a single hair-pulling moment :)
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 8:20:42 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
What am I missing in your arguments?
elaborated in another part of this thread.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven.
Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..)
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 20:58, Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves
lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven.
Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..)
There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest.
Interesting. Can you please spell out a few details on this one? I'm interested in knowing.
Thanks, jaju
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 11:30, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest.
Interesting. Can you please spell out a few details on this one? I'm interested in knowing.
The licences page stated in effect that you could not use gpl software for commercial purposes. i do not remember the exact words but had mailed them at the time with details of why they were wrong and a possible template for that page. there was no correction a year later at which point i maiied them again. The details should be in the list archives, where i had posted exact words from trolltech's page, when there was a big flame war on the list on the subject. The present pages are only slightly different, adding the term properitory and again clubbing proprietory and commercial and hence inferring that gpl software cannot be commercial. This ploy is only slightly less worse than pure fud.
"For the sake of avoiding complexity, we mainly use the term "commercial" in the following. The commercial license allows you to:
* Develop commercial software and software whose source code you wish to keep private. "
Again the clubbing of commercial and prop, and creating complexity instead of avoiding it. BTW even gpl software is properitory - someone owns the copyright - PhilipTellis had corrected us on this point.
That line should read: * Develop software whose source code you wish to keep private.
It does not matter wether it is commercial or not, because i cannot use a gpl package to distribute non-commercial binaries.
However they try to straighten out things after tying them selves in a knot: "Based on the "Quid Pro Quo" principle, if you wish to derive a commercial advantage by not releasing your application under an open source license, you must purchase an appropriate number of commercial licenses from Qt Software. By purchasing commercial licenses, you are no longer obliged to publish your source code.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..)
There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest.
You can use Qt for commercial purpose - when you have license for it. The page clearly says about it.
That doesn't make company dishonest. In fact, IMHO, they are honest to tell about Licenses in public clearly.
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 11:32, Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..)
There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest.
You can use Qt for commercial purpose - when you have license for it. The page clearly says about it.
That doesn't make company dishonest. In fact, IMHO, they are honest to tell about Licenses in public clearly.
You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially.
2008/12/30 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially.
http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing
The confusion stems from the common misunderstanding that commercial == proprietary
It clearly states "The Open Source Editions of Qt and Qt Jambi are freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL)."
Which does not mean, you cannot use it for commercial purposes.
- Praveen
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 11:50, Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/30 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially.
http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing
The confusion stems from the common misunderstanding that commercial == proprietary
It clearly states "The Open Source Editions of Qt and Qt Jambi are freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL)."
Which does not mean, you cannot use it for commercial purposes.
They are still at it. "The Qt Commercial License is the correct license to use for the development of proprietary and/or commercial software with Qt or Qt Jambi."
That is partly rubbish.
And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lice...
has more rubbish.
2008/12/30 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
They are still at it. "The Qt Commercial License is the correct license to use for the development of proprietary and/or commercial software with Qt or Qt Jambi."
That is partly rubbish.
Agreed. That is what I said about misunderstanding of the word commercial. They should have used proprietary instead of commercial.
And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lice...
has more rubbish.
Like?
- Praveen
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/30 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
And
http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lice...
has more rubbish.
Like?
+1 interested in knowing.
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:53:34 pm jtd wrote:
And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lic ense
this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only??
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 (“GPL”)."
apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...'
So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under?
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only??
They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here?
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 ("GPL")."
apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...'
That is the property of a copyleft license. There is nothing new Nokia has done here.
So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under?
It is because GPL requires all derivative works to use the same license. Nothing new Nokia invented.
-Praveen
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote:
this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only??
They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here?
as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL? Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release the software under GPL???
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 ("GPL")."
apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...'
That is the property of a copyleft license. There is nothing new Nokia has done here.
Nokia? how did nokia come into the picture?
So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under?
It is because GPL requires all derivative works to use the same license. Nothing new Nokia invented.
so any application developed using QT is a derivative work? And again, where does Nokia come in?
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL? Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release
Would your application work without QT? You need QT+your code to make your application work. You don't need GNU C compiler for your built code to work, you will need GNU C library (glibc). But glibc is under LGPL. If glibc were under GPL, what you say will be correct. I think the confusion is because we are not used to many GPLed libraries and assume libraries can't be GPL.
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
Nokia? how did nokia come into the picture?
well you found it yourself. Nokia bought Trolltech and now own QT.
so any application developed using QT is a derivative work? And again, where does Nokia come in?
Any application that will need QT to run (compile time or runtime) is a derivative work. Any program that uses a library is a derivative work and your ability to use the library is based onthe license of the library.
Well, there is still contention whether dynamic linking can be a derivative work.
- Praveen
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:00:14 am Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL? Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release
Would your application work without QT? You need QT+your code to make your application work. You don't need GNU C compiler for your built code to work, you will need GNU C library (glibc). But glibc is under LGPL. If glibc were under GPL, what you say will be correct. I think the confusion is because we are not used to many GPLed libraries and assume libraries can't be GPL.
anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL.
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL.
... if you plan not to use GPL for your code.
"Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 9:14:49 am Praveen A wrote:
anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL.
... if you plan not to use GPL for your code.
if at all I remember to license my code, I use the BSD license - not using GPL != not writing free software.
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
if at all I remember to license my code, I use the BSD license - not using GPL != not writing free software.
That is the way GPL works. You don't have to use GPLed code if you don't want your code to be GPL. Take some libraries that are not GPL, say GTK instead of QT. The purpose of GPL is protecting everyone's freedom and make sure middlemen does not strip those. So this (not able to use other licenses) is a cost one has to pay for ensuring freedom. If you believe it is too costly, then you could pick code written in other licenses.
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 9:14:49 am Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL.
... if you plan not to use GPL for your code.
"Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying the best of both worlds - a great con.
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying the best of both worlds - a great con.
It gives an advantage to Free Software developers over proprietary developers. No one is forcing anyone. If you don't like GPL, don't take it. Even if by mistake you take GPL code in your program and some one finds it out later, you are not forced to release your code. You are given a choice
1) release your code under GPL 2) Stop using the GPL code and find something else
Even in the worst scenario, you are not forced to release you code, though that might be the best thing to do.
You might want to check out this presentation about comparing FOSS to ocean and proprietary to earth http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail659.html
If the code only comes in and does not go out it becomes a swamp. As discussed earlier, forcing one to use GPL is a cost one has to pay for ensuring everyone's freedom. If you can't afford it, you can look for other code.
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying the best of both worlds - a great con.
Only some people. Like trolltech and Nokia who owned all the code before releasing it GPL. I am not aware of the status of external contributions though. Do trolltech require assignment of copyrights?
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only??
They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here?
anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here:
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)
So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible public by misusing the term GPL.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)
So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible public by misusing the term GPL.
Sorry, this is pure FUD!
QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" - and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. It won't make you a misuser!
And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet!
I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation is dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled.
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:28:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
Sorry, this is pure FUD!
QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" - and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. It won't make you a misuser!
well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code. I remember people doing this with MySQL long ago - they would develop with mysql, but required the customer to download mysql independently. I presume the same would be the case with software developed with QT - just compile at the customers end and problem is solved.
And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet!
not enough - there are 4 criteria.
I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation is dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled.
I too am wondering why I am wasting New Years eve discussing the use of something that I would never use ;-)
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 16:00, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:28:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
Sorry, this is pure FUD!
QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" - and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. It won't make you a misuser!
well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code.
While your contention is correct (ref your second para), that is not what i am getting at. What i am saying is that troltech's contention that i cannot commercially distribute gpl software is rubbish. Trolltech is implying that i cannot sell gpl software because their licence is gpl + restrictions. Thus a person wanting to profit by selling a package with GPLv2 /3 QT libs under the terms of the gpl cannot do so because trolltech has licenced QT as gpl + trolltech restrictions. In which case QT is not gpl and trolltech is conning the public by pretending their licence is gpl. And if it is gpl i can sell commercially with source and no additional restriction as per the gpl.
Which ever way you look at it the are playing a con game, as far as their licence page goes.
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 5:02:25 pm jtd wrote:
well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code.
While your contention is correct (ref your second para), that is not what i am getting at. What i am saying is that troltech's contention that i cannot commercially distribute gpl software is rubbish. Trolltech is implying that i cannot sell gpl software because their licence is gpl + restrictions. Thus a person wanting to profit by selling a package with GPLv2 /3 QT libs under the terms of the gpl cannot do so because trolltech has licenced QT as gpl + trolltech restrictions. In which case QT is not gpl and trolltech is conning the public by pretending their licence is gpl. And if it is gpl i can sell commercially with source and no additional restriction as per the gpl.
Which ever way you look at it the are playing a con game, as far as their licence page goes.
Agree - they have a license section which forms part of the code they distribute. This has the GPL quoted verbatim, giving all the rights GPL gives with only one modification relating to openssl - THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. There is also a file named OPENSOURCE-NOTICE.TXT. Here they have tacked on some conditions - but these conditions do not form part of the license - if they did, then it is doubtful whether either FSF or OSF would recognise their license. So the con game is also there in the code itself.
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
Agree - they have a license section which forms part of the code they distribute. This has the GPL quoted verbatim, giving all the rights GPL gives with only one modification relating to openssl - THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. There is also a file named OPENSOURCE-NOTICE.TXT. Here they have tacked on some conditions - but these conditions do not form part of the license - if they did, then it is doubtful whether either FSF or OSF would recognise their license. So the con game is also there in the code itself.
"Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start developing proprietary software using the Open Source edition."
"If you, your company or your organization derive commercial benefit from Trolltech's products _________and do not wish to release your complete source code___________, you are required to purchase the appropriate number of commercial licenses.
"Alternatively, if you are willing to follow the terms of the GPL (General Public License), Trolltech software is available to you under Open Source licenses which allows you _________to develop, modify and distribute______________ your software freely."
"The main obligation for software development under the GPL is that anyone using your Qt-based software must have access to the complete source code, and must be able to modify and redistribute that software to anyone free of charge."
I think that was pretty clear. Even though the word commercial is misleading, you can't miss the explanation - what they mean by commercial. It clearly states what you can do with the GPL version.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet!
The problem is that they are NOT spelling out anywhere whether they are using GPL or not. Went through some of the licensing FAQ. Read the following:
http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/194?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de...
http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/190?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de...
And more .. clearly contradicting:
http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/192?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de... http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/191?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de...
Regards, farazs
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here:
No. What it means is, because software developed is a derivative work (if it were not, we would not have needed this exception) we are easing the derivative work requirement. GPL says derivative works should be GPL and we give you some more choices, it could be any of the listed Free Software license.
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)
So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible public by misusing the term GPL.
Licensing is a legal topic and not everyone understands the nuances. Between all this confusion comes only to those who write code with QT and not for just using it.
Its not rubbish, you can't release your code in any license other than those listed. So it is still copyleft like GPL, but much looser (giving you a lot more options for your license, but still requoring it to be foss).
1. You write code under GPL - no confusion, you can link to QT 2. You write your code under any of the listed FOSS licenses - again no confusion you can link to QT 2. You want to keep your code proprietary - no confusion you pay QT for a proprietary license.
The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary.
- Praveen
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote:
The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary.
so commercial == proprietary?
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote:
The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary.
so commercial == proprietary?
No. It is a very common misunderstanding especially for "businesses" (I keep hearing the term commercial from many of my colleagues when they actually mean is proprietary) . Nokia/Trolltech have explained clearly what rights and obligations you have in the explanations.
On Thursday 01 January 2009 09:11, Praveen A wrote:
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote:
The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary.
so commercial == proprietary?
No. It is a very common misunderstanding especially for "businesses" (I keep hearing the term commercial from many of my colleagues when they actually mean is proprietary) . Nokia/Trolltech have explained clearly what rights and obligations you have in the explanations. --
Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale does not understand the term commercial?. I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary. Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence.
2009/1/1 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale does not understand the term commercial?. I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary.
Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it is not correct or we campaign not to use it, because that is so common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux? Or why people still use the word pirate?
Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence.
You don't have to presume anything. The code has GPL license and plus they have eased the requirement of derivative works to be under GPL, to a list of foss licenses.
- Praveen
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 10:40:28 am Praveen A wrote:
commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary.
Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it is not correct or we campaign not to use it, because that is so common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux?
because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'.
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'.
If it were that simple RMS would not have to maintain this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
"In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear."
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 11:24:00 am Praveen A wrote:
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'.
If it were that simple RMS would not have to maintain this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
RMS has a habit of making simple things complicated ;-) I am quite sure that nokia knows the difference between commercial and proprietary and insist on the commercial license for commercial free software.
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
RMS has a habit of making simple things complicated ;-) I am quite sure that nokia knows the difference between commercial and proprietary and insist on the commercial license for commercial free software.
FSF and Debian thinks qt is Free Software. Red Hat and Novell redistribute it commercially as well. From what I see it is Free Software but if you think otherwise you can keep away from it.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html (Many articles on gnu.org mentions it and this is what I got in a quick search). http://packages.debian.org/source/lenny/qt4-x11
On Friday 02 January 2009 10:40, Praveen A wrote:
2009/1/1 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale does not understand the term commercial?. I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary.
Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it is not correct
You DO NOT use terms that you know are NOT CORRECT in a legal document. Try defending the mess that will follow in court. "I new robbing cellphones is not correct, but i saw abc and xyz do it and he was'nt caught so i did it". You will most likely get a bonus term.
or we campaign not to use it, because that is so common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux?
Linux and GNU/Linux are two very distinct things. If you plan to use the term in a legal doc refer to this http://www.linuxmark.org/.
Linux is a trade mark. However GNU/Linux is not.
Or why people still use the word pirate?
Piracy has a specific meaning in legal jargon. As do every punctuation mark. Pleas do not trivialise the text of a licence.
Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence.
You don't have to presume anything. The code has GPL license and plus they have eased the requirement of derivative works to be under GPL, to a list of foss licenses.
The rule for interpretation is extremely simple 1) does the term commercial appear in the licence 2) does the licence refer to notice.txt
If any one of the two do, the licence is not GPL. If neither do, it is GPL
I am belabouring this because i dont want to download the whole source tarball to get at the licence. Can someone post the licence or a url for this specific licence.
2009/1/1 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
The rule for interpretation is extremely simple
- does the term commercial appear in the licence
- does the licence refer to notice.txt
If any one of the two do, the licence is not GPL. If neither do, it is GPL
I give up. I tried my best to explain what I know. If you plan to use it, contact Nokia legal.
I am belabouring this because i dont want to download the whole source tarball to get at the licence. Can someone post the licence or a url for this specific licence.
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/q/qt4-x11/qt4-x11_4.4.3-1/co...
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 11:56:51 am jtd wrote:
- does the term commercial appear in the licence
no
- does the licence refer to notice.txt
no
On Friday 02 January 2009 12:59, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 11:56:51 am jtd wrote:
- does the term commercial appear in the licence
no
- does the licence refer to notice.txt
no
God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL.
2009/1/2 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL.
It helped clear up confusions of many.
On Saturday 03 Jan 2009 11:20:55 am Praveen A wrote:
2009/1/2 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL.
It helped clear up confusions of many.
and no invective, no personal remarks!
2009/1/2 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL.
And it is now LGPL - hot and exclusive news (Thanks to Pradeepto). http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/news/lgpl-license-option-added-to-qt
One endless discussion topic gone :-)
You can use Qt in commercial software from 4.5 _without_ having to make your code Free or buying a commercial license.
- Praveen
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 14:07, Praveen A wrote:
2009/1/2 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL.
And it is now LGPL - hot and exclusive news (Thanks to Pradeepto). http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/news/lgpl-license-option-added-to-q t
One endless discussion topic gone :-)
You can use Qt in commercial software from 4.5 _without_ having to make your code Free or buying a commercial license.
You can use Qt in closed software from 4.5 without having to offer your code under a gplv2 licence. You could always make commercial software using Qt without buying a commercial licence, subject to offering your software under the gplV2.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:53:34 pm jtd wrote:
And
http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lic
ense
this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only??
Sorry, no joke here. Only if you sell your modifications/enhancements are you required to release the source code. Keep it to yourself and Qt wouldn't give a damn.
"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 ("GPL")."
apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...'
huh? The operative word in your statement is "apparently" - and I can assure you that your understanding is wrong, unless you have your own English grammar and semantics.
So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under?
Sure, you can't, if you *choose* the GPL path! With such possible mixing, we'd have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix. To answer your question, based on your above cut-and-paste-from-trolltech: QT is available under multiple licenses (GPL v2, v3, and its proprietary license.)
Best wishes, jaju
2008/12/31 Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.com:
have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix.
well, it is a one way path. you can add BSD code to GPLed code. ZFS and dtrace are under CDDL, which is also a Free Software license, but incompatible with GPL.
-Praveen
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/31 Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.com:
have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix.
well, it is a one way path. you can add BSD code to GPLed code. ZFS and dtrace are under CDDL, which is also a Free Software license, but incompatible with GPL.
Sorry, my bad. You're right.
Thanks, jaju
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:49:09 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...'
huh? The operative word in your statement is "apparently" - and I can assure you that your understanding is wrong, unless you have your own English grammar and semantics.
shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed.
Sorry if it sounded personal, but it was my natural reaction to your statements which do not seem to represent what QT claims in its licensing terms/conditions, and without the benefit of instant feedback (like, when face-2-face), I had to put in my (personal sounding) "disclaimers"
My, and I presume others', understanding about the licensing terms of the Free version of QT is very different from yours - QT is available under GPL v2, v3, and also some exceptions which specify how you can use QT for your own code which you wish to release under other open licenses like BSD, Apache, CDDL, EPL, blah blah.
Which makes QT perfectly complying with the FOSS principles as far as I can see. I can, off-list, send across the "licenses" files which are part of the source-code (from the svn checked-out codebase) - if you wish to have a look.
What freedom does it suppress, in your opinion?
Thanks, jaju
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:16:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
Which makes QT perfectly complying with the FOSS principles as far as I can see. I can, off-list, send across the "licenses" files which are part of the source-code (from the svn checked-out codebase) - if you wish to have a look.
please do
What freedom does it suppress, in your opinion?
will revert after seeing the licenses
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed.
Well, when you say a program is released under GPL, it means you have all the freedoms GPL gives. What QT exception says is over and above the freedoms we are granting you some more like your program need not be GPL, but it could be any other FOSS license.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially.
Ok. I missed my point.
1. Use Qt with GPL for any purpose, either FOSS or Commercial - Give the source if you are putting it in public (ie mandatory when you are using any GPL products/sw etc). 2. Use Qt for closed source stuffs - purchase Qt License(s).
Dear List, Please correct me if I am wrong.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially.
<continuing> ... *as long as* you provide the source code to your 'commercial' software to the end user. If you wish to keep your code (built on Qt) private, only then do you need to obtain their commercial license - because Qt is not LGPL which you can link to for free.
Qt doesn't stop you from selling your GPL code based on Qt - does it?
My reply in-line.
-- --Dinesh Shah :-) +91-98213-11906 Shah Micro System http://dineshah.wordpress.com Sent from iPhone!
On Dec 30, 2008, at 19:31, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:20:44 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote:
The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way.
1] The "other" license does not matter to "us" 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS
Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason!
proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain meet. A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list.
We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list.
Do not impose any arbrotery rules on the list.
The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list.
.. And lots of OTs from 'Masters Of The OTs' too.
;)
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 11:42:12 pm Dinesh Shah wrote:
A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list.
We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list.
we do?
Do not impose any arbrotery rules on the list.
I am not imposing any rules - I am not an admin anyway. As a member of the list I have the right to speak out on what is on topic and what is not.
2008/12/30 Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com:
We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list.
Let's rephrase it. We don't mind discussing non-free software in appropriate context. But discussion of non-free software alone is not encouraged, and poster should get ready with her flame proof garments.
Anurag
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 19:20, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way.
1] The "other" license does not matter to "us" 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS
Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason!
I think they are bundling additional features (or unbundling from the gpl package), rather than selling additional tools. Any way i thought Kartik was refering to the other (PUEL) licence and KG was dissing that.
-
Anurag -
Balachandran Sivakumar -
Dinesh Shah -
Erach -
Faraz Shahbazker -
jtd -
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Praveen A -
Ravindra Jaju