Re: Qt license

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Qt license
by Tassilo on Monday 15/May/2006, @11:09

>> "Our test cell code is used in house, which means
>> that we didn't need to buy a Qt license."
>
> Really? It was my understanding that if Qt is used for commercial
> purposes, the Trolls want it licensed commercially, regardless of
> distribution.

But Caleb's company doesn't sell the applications, they just use them
in-house, which makes them non-commercial.

Bye,
Tassilo

Related Links

·   Articles on Interviews
·   Also by Tassilo
·   Contact author

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

Re: Qt license
by David on Monday 15/May/2006, @12:30

If they only use it inhouse they can even use the GPL version legally. Because the GPL only forces you to make the source available along with the binary if you give it to someone else (outhouse).

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by LMCBoy on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @13:08

Yes, but acording to Trolltech, you cannot use the open-source version of Qt unless you are pulically distributing the code:

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/190/

Hence my question of how they can require this and not violate the GPL. Anyway, the reading of the above FAQ answer is a bit vague. Maybe they only "recommend" the commercial license for internal applications.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by Corbin on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @17:51

"Using the Qt Open Source Edition, can I make _non-opensource software_ for internal use in my company/organization?"

Keyword: 'non-opensource software'

"Although it is possible to write open source software for internal use, it is difficult to ensure that such software is used and distributed legally. For example, if your open source software requires any modules that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure agreement, then you cannot distribute it at all; hence it cannot be given to consultants, employees for their personal computers, subsidiaries, other divisions, or even to new owners."

Right here it says that you can write open source software for internal use, just that if you're using any modules their license may contradict the GPL.

Next time please read the link before posting, ok?

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by superstoned on Monday 15/May/2006, @12:38

indeed. so, as most software development is done in-house - most development doesn't care at all about GPL or LGPL... and some even still pay for the support!

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by LMCBoy on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @13:11

I'm not talking about GPL vs. LGPL, I'm talking about Trolltech's position that internal development can *only* use the commercial license; you are not supposed to use the open-source edition for internal-use applications:

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/190/

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by Carlo on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @13:23

They don't say that. Read again.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by shev on Friday 01/Dec/2006, @13:14

GOSH, please READ the article, LMCBoy!

You are making wrong claims.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by ac on Monday 15/May/2006, @16:43

They could even sell the apps using the GPL version, as long as they provided the source to their customers upon request, and otherwise complied with the GPL. Trolltech should really call their "commercial" license their "proprietary" license, since there's no problem distributing commercial apps under the GPL.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by Erik on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @01:50

That's the experience I had. I've been asked if Qt/GPL prevented the author from being paid for the work done. Most people combine "commercial" with "to be paid for", which is a big issue.

lg
Erik

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by ZACK on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @13:06

Haha, you can sell the GPL version to a custommer but the custommer can freely post it on the Internet and everyone else can dowmload it for free.

GPL really is not a commerce-friendly license. It protects rights of the user, not author's rights.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by Corbin on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @17:55

Long as your take that into account with your business model thats not a problem, RedHat is surviving rather well (and is making a profit) despite all of their code being GPL/LGPL/other OSI approved OSS license.

Also for pretty niche products the version on the Internet probably wouldn't spread very fast...

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by LMCBoy on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @13:05

> But Caleb's company doesn't sell the applications,
> they just use them in-house, which makes them
> non-commercial.

Wrong, according to Trolltech:

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/190/

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Qt license
by Corbin on Tuesday 16/May/2006, @17:56

>> But Caleb's company doesn't sell the applications,
>> they just use them in-house, which makes them
>> non-commercial.
>
>Wrong, according to Trolltech:
>
>http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/190/

How about actually reading that link? Please stop trolling.

[ Reply To This | View ]

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


		"Ahhh, the whole screen feels bigger now." -- Waldo Bastian
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.