On Saturday 04 December 2004 09:42, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:32, sherlock@vsnl.com wrote:
On Friday 03 December 2004 08:40, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 06:28, risqer wrote:
Hi, Is Qt free now, I mean"free as in speech" ?
Dual licenced - GPL/QPL (QT Public licence, akin to the GPL) for GPL'd apps, and commercial seat based licencing for commercial
wrong terminology. U presume that GPL'd software are not commercial.GPLd applications can be very commercial. The right terminology would be "non GPL'd".
This isn't the first time that an incorrect / misleading statement about GPL / commercial software has appeared on the list. Please take care not to mislead.
apps. Check their website for details.
From one of their PRs
"As before, any user who wishes to create proprietary or closed source software must first purchase a development license from Trolltech."
JT,
Please look before you leap (or comment in this case). Please read the
I have not only RTFL but written to Trolltech about the utterly misleading statement on commercial / GPL software. They replied with a wishy washy thing about trying to look into the matter (apparently they are still trying more than a year later). But the PR is very clear.
The Qt Open Source Editions may be freely copied and distributed, put on FTP sites and CD-ROMs, etc., under the same open-source licenses that they are supplied with. This is completely different from the Qt Commercial Editions which cannot be distributed at all.
</snip>
They state that the code content of the GPL/QPL edition is identical to the *Commercial Edition*, but however clearly differentiate the commercial edition by labelling it as such. That is what I meant when I made the original post. While I have no desire to get into a flame war over this, I wish you wouldn't use terms like "misleading" and "incorrect" without RTFM.
I stand by both statements. IMNHO Trolltech's attempt to explain the difference between GPL'd / Commercial software is misleading and incorrect and your mail does not clarify this, which is akin to "agreement".
The fact is that GPL'd software can be very commercial and can be distributed for any consideration deemed fit except changing the terms of the GPL.
(just hoped into flame proof shelter ;-).
rgds jtd
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 01:09, sherlock@vsnl.com wrote:
On Saturday 04 December 2004 09:42, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:32, sherlock@vsnl.com wrote:
On Friday 03 December 2004 08:40, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 06:28, risqer wrote:
Hi, Is Qt free now, I mean"free as in speech" ?
Dual licenced - GPL/QPL (QT Public licence, akin to the GPL) for GPL'd apps, and commercial seat based licencing for commercial
wrong terminology. U presume that GPL'd software are not commercial.GPLd applications can be very commercial. The right terminology would be "non GPL'd".
This isn't the first time that an incorrect / misleading statement about GPL / commercial software has appeared on the list. Please take care not to mislead.
apps. Check their website for details.
From one of their PRs
"As before, any user who wishes to create proprietary or closed source software must first purchase a development license from Trolltech."
JT,
Please look before you leap (or comment in this case). Please read the
I have not only RTFL but written to Trolltech about the utterly misleading statement on commercial / GPL software. They replied with a wishy washy thing about trying to look into the matter (apparently they are still trying more than a year later). But the PR is very clear.
The Qt Open Source Editions may be freely copied and distributed, put on FTP sites and CD-ROMs, etc., under the same open-source licenses that they are supplied with. This is completely different from the Qt Commercial Editions which cannot be distributed at all.
</snip>
They state that the code content of the GPL/QPL edition is identical to the *Commercial Edition*, but however clearly differentiate the commercial edition by labelling it as such. That is what I meant when I made the original post. While I have no desire to get into a flame war over this, I wish you wouldn't use terms like "misleading" and "incorrect" without RTFM.
I stand by both statements. IMNHO Trolltech's attempt to explain the difference between GPL'd / Commercial software is misleading and incorrect and your mail does not clarify this, which is akin to "agreement".
The fact is that GPL'd software can be very commercial and can be distributed for any consideration deemed fit except changing the terms of the GPL.
You're correct in that GPL software can be "commercial", meaning it can be sold for a profit, as long as the transaction adheres to the terms of the licence. However, most companies, including Trolltech, use the term commercial for closed source/ properietary software, and indeed, that is the sense that most people use it. Although this usage is not a particularly happy one, it is the way most of the computer industry looks at the GPL.
Let me end this thread by saying that while I find your defence of the commercial possibilities under GPL admirable, unfortunately the term "commercial software" has come to denote properietary/ closed source, and it is going to be exceedingly difficult to change.
BTW, you want to watch your line length.
Regards,
Krishnan
-
sherlock＠vsnl.com -
Srinivasan Krishnan