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

List:       kde-bindings
Subject:    Re: [Kde-bindings] license question
From:       Phil Thompson <phil () riverbankcomputing ! co ! uk>
Date:       2005-12-21 8:06:51
Message-ID: 200512210806.51376.phil () riverbankcomputing ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 21 December 2005 4:46 am, Marcus wrote:
> > If you must purchase a commercial license to BOTH Qt AND whatever
> > bindings you're using to do a commercial Qt app in anything but C++, then
> > how can they claim that the bindings are competing with them?  I've never
> > heard of any bindings claiming to be a replacement for Qt, nor could they
> > be.  You purchase just Qt or both, meaning no matter what they get their
> > cut.
>
> It has been a long time since I had the conversation, so the details are
> coming back slowly (but faster than my dead hard drive with the email
> archives is coming back).
>
> As I am recalling now, the catch is that anyone who wanted to use the
> bindings in a commercial way would also need the commercial Qt license. In
> this way, they are differentiating bindings from "normal" applications. For
> example, if I wrote my application SuperDuper, I would normally be include
> Qt's libs in the application if I had a commercial Qt license, but for
> bindings, they would not permit that kind of situation.
>
> (I say "commercial" in the generic sense for proprietary, enterprise
> license or whatever the phrasing is.)

That is correct, but what you said originally is completely different (and 
wrong).

Phil
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]