[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    Re: Qt license
From:       Jukka Honkela <fatal () james ! hut ! fi>
Date:       1997-08-19 21:40:53
[Download RAW message or body]

> There have been some discussions here about the Qt Free Software License
> and Troll Tech's policies.
> 
> In order to try to clear up some recurring misunderstandings, we would
> like to point you to our FAQ:
> 
> 	http://www.troll.no/faq/faq-freeedition.html
> 
>     Eirik
>     -----
> 
> P.S. Since this is a pointer to a FAQ I'm sending it here on the kde list,
> reply-to has been set to kde-licensing.

I know this link. I've read it a bit earlier. This FAQ does not deal
in any way with the idea as someone stated here in the mailing list,
why not to release QT 1.2 as GPL when QT 1.3 is out.
There exists one nice "kludge" here. Do _not_ release it under the
General Publib Library Licence, but under the normal GPL.
I suppouse you can understand what this means. It simply secures your
"safety" but also makes the library GPL'd so nobody can say it's not
GPL'd. 
But it also means that nobody can link it against any commeriacal
program as it is now. You give up supporting the GPL'd library
at the second it is made as GPL, if you want.
Just give always the latest library for free for your customers 
before you make using the old one illegal. The existing programs
would not be illegal anyhow, before they were linked before the
licence was changed (?).
So, as a result we have a GPL'd library (as anybody wants, nobody
said anything about the GPLL) and Troll Tech still has it's product to
sell. 

There are several things to be considered. First of all, I don't think
we are not in a hurry. KDE project can stay using the QT 1.2 for
some time. The QT 1.2 can be released under GPL when QT 1.4 is out,
for example, to keep somekind of "safety" margin. During this time
it just doesn't matter if it's GPL or your licencing system,
the basic idea is still having the GPL someday. 

Now if somebody starts whining that having a GPL'd library
without the GPLL isn't true 'freedom'.
It's only "not true freedom" to those who want everything for free 
and want to make money out of what else have done. There are free
libraries, there seems to be GNOME project if you want to make money
out of what others have done. 

Now about the FAQ...
One of the reasons not to release QT as GPL is to prevent 
several different versions of qt spreading out...
There are two major things that can prevent this:
1) we, as a KDE community, refuse to use anything else than the
original version with the KDE project, also use the latest GPL'd version
of QT in hand. I strongly believe that KDE will be the major 
oraganization using the QT for free purpouses in the future (even now?).
2) If there is a new release of QT coming out as GPL in the future,
making changes all over again to this library to keep somekind of
compactibility there is fustrating. Just to have your 'great changes'
to it (it is really the problem of using inheritance correctly,
not having the changes to QT) is quite worthless.

Now, is there a problem of having somebody to modify your library
and release it under GPLL? I dunno GPL/GPLL that well, besides 
the whole thing is slightly brain dead (pretty unclear sometimes,
I mean) so this would have to be figured out.

"With a GPL'ed library, the only thing you are
allowed to develop is GPL'able software. In this way, Qt gives you
a freedom which a GPL'ed library does not."
Well, here is a point. Well. I guess the latest QT library can still
be held under the original free-licence. 
All this leads to this: if you really want to have a GPL'd 
QT library, you have it, althou it might be slightly outdated,
but the original licence would still apply to this old free-licence
system if you use the latest library.

Is this all needed? For some it seems to be so. At least this way
the possiblity of 'evil' m$ buying the QT could be prevented for sure.
At that point the development of the GPL version would begin instead
of always waiting the new release from Troll Tech.

It seems to be that this message became a 'bit' longer than
I first thought... but I hope the point is in there.
Remember, this is only a suggestion, hopefully a reasonable one.

Comments?
...
Jukka Honkela

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]