The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: GPL only
by cartman on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @12:27
|
<snip>
Please, Trolltech, offer this under the QPL as well. It makes absolutely no sense to have to purchase the proprietary version of Qt in order to distribute Open Source Software.
</snip>
If you purchase Qt you can distribute your Qt app as closed source. Read before you post.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by anon on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @13:11
|
Uhhh... he was talking about free and open software that simply wasn't GPL'd. Examples of this are anything in KDE which is BSD, QPL, Artistic, etc.. licensed.
Much of this is made possible by the dual licensing.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @14:20
|
I don't know about the other licenses, but BSD apps can certainly be linked with GPLed QT, it's just that the derivative work is licensed under the GPL.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Datschge on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:37
|
Nope, since QT is also under QPL which allows any and all true FOSS licences the app can keep its BSD licence.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:50
|
We are going in circles here.
Cartman was asking for QT/Mac to be licensed under the QPL - it isn't at the moment.
Then anon asserted that this prevented BSD licensed software from linking with QT/Mac legally.
Then I pointed out that this wasn't true, since you can link BSD and GPLed software, with the derivative work being GPLed.
The fact that other versions of QT are available under the QPL doesn't mean that the Mac version is. The Mac version isn't, and this means that if you want to link to it, you must agree to the GPL, pay for the commercial license, or use the evaluation version, which expires after 30 days. None of these are the QPL, and only the GPL is feasible for an open-source project to use.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Datschge on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @05:29
|
Yes, you are right, I got fooled by the line stating QT/Mac has a dual licence (commercial, GPL). I guess I better start calling QT/X11's licencing scheme a triple licence (commercial, QPL, GPL) for avoiding confusing myself again.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @16:24
|
That's like saying you can vote for whichever candidate you want, so long as you vote for the one Trolltech wants you to vote for. It's not a BSD licensed app if it must be licensed under the GPL.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Simon Farnsworth on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @16:33
|
If I'm interpreting correctly, the app+Qt combination is GPL licenced on the Mac; if you ship a binary dependant on Qt/Mac, that binary as a whole is under the GPL. If your app is also available under another GPL-compatible licence, the end user can obtain that application under *that* licence, and is only then forced back to GPL if they distribute a Qt/Mac binary based on the free edition of Qt. If they use the commercial edition of Qt, they are not forced to GPL the combination.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @16:42
|
No.
You write code. The copyright on this particular code belongs to you. This work can be licensed however you want. Let's say you pick a BSD-style license.
When linking it to the QT toolkit, you are creating a derivative work (the binary) based upon both your work and Trolltech's work. Now, you need a license from Trolltech to distribute this.
Trolltech offer a number of licenses. If you are linking against the Mac edition, you have the opportunity of paying them for a license (the "commercial" license option), you can choose the evaluation license (which expires after 30 days), or you can choose the GPL license.
The first two options let you distribute the derivative work however you see fit. The GPL has a clause that requires any derivative works to fall under the GPL license.
Now, somebody else comes along. They may want to distribute the derivative work under the GPL. That's okay - since you offered your copyrighted work to the public via the BSD license - which allows incorporation into any and all derivative works without any other requirements. They can therefore distribute the derivative work under the GPL. This is what is meant when people talk about "GPL-compatible licenses".
Now, another person comes along. They have a commercial license for QT, and wish to distribute the derivative work in binary-only form. This is also okay - your work is under the BSD license, which allows incorporation into any derivative works, and they already have a license saying that it's okay for them to do the same with Trolltech's work.
At no point has your original work not been available under the BSD license. If people have a commercial license for QT, they can give away binary-only forms of your work. If they port it to a platform where QT is available under the QPL, they can link it with that and give away binary-only forms of your work. If they partially rewrite it so that it uses a different toolkit, they are subject to that toolkit's licensing constraints.
It is only the Trolltech original work's license that is restrictive - you are free to license your work any way you see fit, and you can pick the BSD license if you so desire. But you can't relicense Trolltech's works for other people, you can only ask them (politely) to offer licenses that you want them to.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @19:07
|
<snip>When linking it to the QT toolkit, you are creating a derivative work (the binary) based upon both your work and Trolltech's work. Now, you need a license from Trolltech to distribute this.</snip>
Linking does not create a derivative work. In the case of static linkage, the GPL applies because you are actually distributing the library along with the binary. But in the case of dynamic or runtime linkage, you are not copying, modifying or distributing the GPLd work, so the GPL should not apply. Trolltech and the FSF disagree, put here's a link to an informed and educated counter-opinion by the general counsel of the Open Source Initiative: http://rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf.
I don't have my own team of lawyers, so I find it easier to simply ask Trolltech to offer Qt/Mac under the same terms as Qt/X11, rather than challenge them on the matter in court.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by anon on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @19:29
|
It's simple: Even dynamic linking creates a derivative work.
The reasoning is not legal, it's technical. Dynamically linked binaries contain information from the libraries against which they were linked against. In the case of linking your application against Qt, you are incorporating code compiled by from the Qt headers (which is under the GPL) in your binary.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Jim Dabell on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @04:50
|
Linking as "creating a derivative work" is so widely accepted in the community that I would certainly not want to go against it. That's a good link David, I was aware of the position, but unaware of the document to go with it. Thanks.
I personally disagree with the technical reason you cite, anon. Otherwise, merely cloning the interface would be enough to infringe on the copyright (remember Harmony?). There are fringe cases such as macros though.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by anon on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @08:58
|
Well it does mean that, and as far as I know it is true.
If you clone the interface/macros etc in a clean room manner, then you've hit the jackpot. Of course you have to link against your clone and make sure it actually works with the real Qt.
Logical conclusion...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @11:17
|
<snip>Dynamically linked binaries contain information from the libraries against which they were linked against</snip>
The information they contain is limited to a reference to an interface. You are using the library in its intended manner through a published API. Absolutely no code from the library is incorporated into the application. A good analogy is a hyperlink on a webpage. Does that hyperlink indicate derivation from the linked page?
p.s. Macros and inlines may be an exception. If there are few of these then Fair Use may allow their fair use [sic]. If there are a lot of them, the argument might still be made that implementation has been placed into the API allowing it to be used by the intended and customary mechanism.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @13:40
|
I don't want to distribute my Qt app as closed source. I want to distribute it as 100% BSD licensed Free Software. I want to distribute my software with zero restrictions, but Trolltech is telling me that their "free" software requires that I restrict the rights of my users.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by tuxo on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:03
|
GPL doesn't restict the right of users, on the contrary, it protects users by not allowing companies to come along and integrate the open source code into their products and close it down into proprietary lock-in software as is unfortunately possible with BSD-style licences.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by hydralisk on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:35
|
Basically, the GPL restricts the freedom of people to restrict the freedom of others.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @16:06
|
When it is not allowed for my users to use my software because Qt/Mac is GPL-only, then the GPL is indeed restricting the rights of my users.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by tuxo on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @17:46
|
You will restrict the rights of a minority of users that are up to no good and preserve the freedom for the rest. I prefer freedom over lock-in anytime.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Michael Greer on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @22:41
|
The GPL asserts absolutely no controls over the rights of end users. It is not a use, but a distribution license. It does affect your rights as a developer if you want to use their code. I think you may be using the word "rights" incorrectly here, to mean "business desires."
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by Stephen Douglas on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @02:34
|
No, nobody is beiong restricted - you are perfectly free to not use Qt at all.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by protoman on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @03:41
|
Well said. I can't understand people complaining about Trolltech desisions.
Trolltech is free to, to make the decisions they like or think are right, this includes excluding other licences other than GPL.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by David Johnson on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @11:02
|
<snip>I can't understand people complaining about Trolltech desisions.</snip>
When Microsoft recently released a license that said in essence "you can't use the GPL", the community was outraged. But when Trolltech says "you must use the GPL" it's okay. I don't see the fundamental difference between the two.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by protoman on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @11:35
|
Yep, agreed.
I think M$ should release anything they have in any license they wish, if this don't brake the law (or previous licenses), I don't see why so much complaining arround there.
And remember people defends GPL agains the "viral" speech from M$ but attacks m$ right to do the shared source....
I don't like BSD, I think it's bad (don't worry to reply about this, keep reading...), but that just me. I won't even say anything besides this from anyone who wants to use BSD, and I must always enphasis the "I" in the statement. Simply saying BSD is bad/GPL is bad isn't a nice thing, always remember it's just YOUR option and fights will diminish or vanish.
Peace people!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: GPL only
by tuxo on Thursday 19/Jun/2003, @06:31
|
>But when Trolltech says "you must use the GPL" it's okay. I don't see the >fundamental difference between the two.
The difference is that forcing GPL serves many people, while not allowing GPL serves mainly one big company, in this case M$.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: GPL only
by Anonymous on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @22:55
|
See this posting by Matthias Ettrich of Trolltech, http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-licensing&m=104970829609721&w=2 :
"The non-GPL code in KDE that I'm aware of grants a superset of rights (typically X11 or BSD-style licenses), meaning linking to a GPL'ed library is not a problem at all."
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
