Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by LMCBoy on Sunday 02/Mar/2003, @13:58

OK, I'm a huge GPL fan, but I actually do see Miguel's point. If you want to attract commercial software to Linux, an LGPL toolkit is clearly preferable to a GPL toolkit.

Personally, I don't care if there is never much commercial software available for Linux; given a choice, I will always choose the Free software alternative! So, to me, the GPL vs. LGPL thing is a total non-issue; however, I can see why someone who wanted to attract commercial vendors would prefer the LGPL.

Related Links

·   Articles on KDE Official News
·   Also by LMCBoy
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by anon on Tuesday 04/Mar/2003, @06:58

It sounds like a good assumption, but the facts indicate that Qt's dual licensing model is superior regarding commercial attraction to Linux. Already, IBM, Adobe, and *many* *many* of the worlds largest software companies are using Qt. This 'royalty/tainted' FUD that Miguel is throwing around is crap.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by Jim Dabell on Tuesday 04/Mar/2003, @08:29

Actually, I think that has more to do with the quality of the toolkit than the licensing model. A couple of thousand isn't much when you factor in all the other costs of developing an application.

What I don't understand is why businesses don't use the GPLed version to develop with, and buy a single developer's license for the closed-source version, and compile with that.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by anon on Tuesday 04/Mar/2003, @09:18

Sure, no one can argue that Qt is excellent and that is the largest factor in it's success ... but I think the dual licensing/cross-platform nature and the knowledge that a real stable company is behind it also probably helps for commercial third-party licensees.

You can't use the GPL version to develop and then switch to a commercial license. That is restricted in the license AFAIK.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by Jim Dabell on Monday 10/Mar/2003, @05:45

> You can't use the GPL version to develop and then switch to a commercial license. That is restricted in the license AFAIK.

Which license? The GPL only covers redistribution - so as long as it's kept within the organisation during development, they don't have to agree to any of the terms in it. And until the end of the development cycle, they don't need the commercial QT, so they don't have to agree to any of the terms in that until that point.

So unless the commercial license has something to the effect of "you may not link code to this version that was previously linked with the GPL version", I'd say somebody doing this would be in the clear.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by ricky martin on Thursday 26/Jun/2003, @08:17

jim u nonce, get out more and stop killing time on this crappy sites!
get the bacon on kid.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Little bit OT but a good reading.
by rob field on Friday 27/Jun/2003, @01:11

too much low level spinning last nite kid and i pulled no one. wish i was like dave the playa. respect to the DBA.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"We could write better than CORBA. Hic. In a day!" -- Preston Brown, Matthias Ettrich
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.