On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
Hi.
I don't (yet) see a contradiction. Opera bought licenses from QT, hence they can produce closed-source software. The reason Opera bought license(s) was to keep their own stuff (ie - the browser) built on top of QT and other things closely guarded.
The important entity to consider in this entire picture is Trolltech - they own all copyrights to the code. So, they have a model wherein they take money from someone (Opera) and give them the permission to not release the browser's code.
Trolltech - the copyright owner - has _also_ given the general public which wishes to use QT under open licenses the right to do anything with QT as long as they comply with those terms. GPL v2 and v3 happen to be two such licenses Trolltech is happy to license under, to such users.
Trolltech - the _owner_ - has the right to choose any license for distributing their code. _Once_ the code 'leaves their premises' under a certain license (say, GPL) - all further derivations will need to conform to that (and compatible) licenses.
So, there's a 'restrictive tree' as you move down - with Trolltech at the root - as a way of 'visualizing' this.
My take on the entire issue - 2 paise!
Best wishes, jaju
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
I don't (yet) see a contradiction.
Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." vs. b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, there would be problems."
Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to say to that. But going by the information on their site, they are deliberately keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO.
Regards, farazs
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." vs. b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, there would be problems."
Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to say to that. But going by the information on their site, they are deliberately keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO.
Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either find me a potential problem in the following scenario
<begin> I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this code, I ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to hold back the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to charge for my code, in which case the source needs to be given away too. <end>
OR:
<begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end>
Maybe, this will help clarify better...
Best wishes, jaju
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." vs. b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL,
there
would be problems."
Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to say to that. But going by the information on their site, they are
deliberately
keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO.
Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either find me a potential problem in the following scenario
If it were so, this list would be history. BTW, you haven't actually respond to my point (yet). Do you still not see any contradiction in the above mentioned statements??
<begin>
I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this code, I ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to hold back the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to charge for my code, in which case the source needs to be given away too.
<end>
The problem is that your scenario is not *quite* what we call GPL. As per GPL, I HAVE to give away the source(for free as in beer/freedom) if I am distributing the binaries - it has nothing to do with whether or not I am charging anything for the binaries. Hence we say that QT is "mis"-using the terms GNU & GPL repeatedly. Please read the GNU GPL once before responding.
<begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end>
I (naively thinking that QT is GPL'ed) develop my software using it. Then I release my code under GPL(as required) and also simultaneously start selling built/packaged versions. Trolltech can still sue me saying that I am using the incorrect licence - I should have a commercial licence from Trolltech if I want to make money ... inspite of the fact that my softwared is GPL'ed.
Regards, farazs
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
<begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end>
I (naively thinking that QT is GPL'ed) develop my software using it. Then I release my code under GPL(as required) and also simultaneously start selling built/packaged versions. Trolltech can still sue me saying that I am using the incorrect licence - I should have a commercial licence from Trolltech if I want to make money ... inspite of the fact that my softwared is GPL'ed.
Aaah ... I see now that my last point was wrong. Clearly, the actual license of QT is the final word. Seems like the web-site has just been tuned to exhort commercial companies to purchase the "commercial" license. No more qualms on this issue ... thanks.
Regards, farazs
Aaah ... I see now that my last point was wrong. Clearly, the actual license of QT is the final word. Seems like the web-site has just been tuned to exhort commercial companies to purchase the "commercial" license. No more qualms on this issue ... thanks.
It is *NOT* QT , it is Qt.
Kushal
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Kushal Das kushaldas@gmail.com wrote:
Aaah ... I see now that my last point was wrong. Clearly, the actual
license
of QT is the final word. Seems like the web-site has just been tuned to exhort commercial companies to purchase the "commercial" license. No more qualms on this issue ... thanks.
It is *NOT* QT , it is Qt.
Double-touché * *:-)* *
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 18:10, Kushal Das wrote:
Aaah ... I see now that my last point was wrong. Clearly, the actual license of QT is the final word. Seems like the web-site has just been tuned to exhort commercial companies to purchase the "commercial" license. No more qualms on this issue ... thanks.
It is *NOT* QT , it is Qt.
qute. You stepped in a bit late? ;-)
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
If it were so, this list would be history. BTW, you haven't actually respond to my point (yet). Do you still not see any contradiction in the above mentioned statements??
No, I still do not see the contradiction you see.
The problem is that your scenario is not *quite* what we call GPL. As per
GPL, I HAVE to give away the source(for free as in beer/freedom) if I am distributing the binaries - it has nothing to do with whether or not I am charging anything for the binaries. Hence we say that QT is "mis"-using the terms GNU & GPL repeatedly. Please read the GNU GPL once before responding.
I guess I should be rephrasing that example. I did not mean "modified" QT code but independent code linking to QT. This new code's copyright is with the person creating this "work" - and it is upto this person to not release the source-code if he does not wish to.
Of course, I may be wrong here. But I did not see anything in the GPL in this regard, forcing one to release code which "can be reasonably considered independent". Of course, I'm treading on some shaky ground here - and this is where the need for LGPL arose too. Because it's not impossible (although, can be a PITA) to work around GPL's viral restrictions by really separating code and making them communicate over some sort of IPC to escape v2's clauses. Clearly, for example, I do not see how Opera can be designed in such a way to work-around GPL. But I can see some data-munching s/w - fairly independent - which only needs QT for displaying. Such s/w can escape having to release their "core" source under GPL - and only give away code which enables bridging with QT.
<begin> > You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled > by anyone, including Trolltech. > <end> > I (naively thinking that QT is GPL'ed) develop my software using it. Then I release my code under GPL(as required) and also simultaneously start selling built/packaged versions. Trolltech can still sue me saying that I am using the incorrect licence - I should have a commercial licence from Trolltech if I want to make money ... inspite of the fact that my softwared is GPL'ed.
I don't think such would be the case. You can still sell your code under GPL, provide QT source-code alongwith. Opera needed to buy because they would not want to release their browser code under GPL. Trolltech can not sue you for selling packaged/built versions if the source-code is included alongwith. The only problem is that you will be able to sell only one copy because the first buyer has the right to re-distribute the source-code for free!
Best wishes, jaju
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
<snip>
Ok, ok, ok!! s/QT/Qt/g
:)
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
[snip] I guess I should be rephrasing that example. I did not mean "modified" QT code but independent code linking to QT. This new code's copyright is with the person creating this "work" - and it is upto this person to not release the source-code if he does not wish to.
If you distribute binaries based on code that links with a GPL library (which Qt is), you MUST make the source code of those binaries available too. That's what the GPL says.
Of course, I may be wrong here. But I did not see anything in the GPL in this regard, forcing one to release code which "can be reasonably considered independent". Of course, I'm treading on some shaky ground here - and this is where the need for LGPL arose too. Because it's not impossible (although, can be a PITA) to work around GPL's viral restrictions by really separating code and making them communicate over some sort of IPC to escape v2's clauses.
People have done that (gotten around the GPL library issue by using an intermediary vehicle) but it's (a) considered using the letter of the law to screw the community and (b) just not possible with something like Qt, which is supposed to do GUI work and would crawl to a halt and die if you started making library calls through some IPC. You might not even be able to do it hypothetically, depending on how closely Qt is bound to the X server.
In any case, library code under GPL is a sort of special case -- if you link your code with that library and distribute binaries you must release your code under the same terms as the GPL too.
BTW, Qt is quite unambiguously licensed under the GPL. From /usr/share/doc/libqt4-core/copyright:
License:
This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or version 3 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
Perhaps we can stop discussing that particular issue (what is the Qt licence) now?
Regards,
-- Raju
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
like Qt, which is supposed to do GUI work and would crawl to a halt and die if you started making library calls through some IPC. You might not even be able to do it hypothetically, depending on how closely Qt is bound to the X server.
These are absolutely unsubstantiated claims, and hence also off-topic. But how many are known to stick to topics anyways (looking into the mirror...) (Interesting tidbit: Affero GPL mandates that source be available for modfications of AGPL code when the code runs as a service over the network and is available to the public)
Perhaps we can stop discussing that particular issue (what is the Qt licence) now?
The reason behind this thread was incorrect interpretation vis-a-vis multiple-licensing policies. Why should the length of the thread be a criterion for stopping a discussion? You have the privilege to ignore, delete or mark these mails as spam! :)
And if you are a/the moderator, you have the additional freedom to kick us/me out!
Happy New Year!
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 17:37, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ravindra Jaju
ravindra.jaju@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker <
faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." vs. b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL,
there
would be problems."
Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to say to that. But going by the information on their site, they are
deliberately
keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO.
Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either find me a potential problem in the following scenario
If it were so, this list would be history. BTW, you haven't actually respond to my point (yet). Do you still not see any contradiction in the above mentioned statements??
<begin>
I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this code, I ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to hold back the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to charge for my code, in which case the source needs to be given away too.
<end>
The problem is that your scenario is not *quite* what we call GPL. As per GPL, I HAVE to give away the source(for free as in beer/freedom) if I am distributing the binaries - it has nothing to do with whether or not I am charging anything for the binaries. Hence we say that QT is "mis"-using the terms GNU & GPL repeatedly. Please read the GNU GPL once before responding.
p.s. tiny quibble: you are entitled to charge a small fee towards recovering costs for distributing the code. AND you must make an offer for the code too, if you are not distributing the code. That is what Cisco is getting shafted for in some court.
<begin> You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled by anyone, including Trolltech. <end>
I (naively thinking that QT is GPL'ed) develop my software using it. Then I release my code under GPL(as required) and also simultaneously start selling built/packaged versions.
Or i just start selling gpld source and binary package to those willing to purchase and not to anybody else.
Trolltech can still sue me saying that I am using the incorrect licence - I should have a commercial licence from Trolltech if I want to make money ... inspite of the fact that my softwared is GPL'ed.
Further, while an extension to the gpl would be perfectly valid since trolltech owns the copyright, by no stretch could it be called gpl. One could get into a legal spat with them over weasel words and wether the said notice.txt (mentioned in other parts of this thread) forms part of the licence.
IMO they have licenced QT as GPL v2 but are indulging in plenty of misinformation in every place where the licence is supposed to be clarified. Including the notice.txt in the licence is imo a very slippery legal floor.
-
Faraz Shahbazker -
jtd -
Kushal Das -
Raj Mathur -
Ravindra Jaju