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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: QPL still needed?
From:       Kevin Forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2003-04-08 2:59:23
[Download RAW message or body]

The lack of clarity is in and of itself reason enogh to cover everyones 
asses with the QPL.

The code in KDE itself is all compatible with the GPL.  However as you 
point out there are
comersial QT apps out there.  The real alternative to the QPL in that 
scenario is not the GPL
but the LGPL.  That license (LGPL) only becomes a serius option if 
someone (Sun, IBM etc...)
makes a realy good offer for Troll Tech.

There might be apps onder the old BSD license or other none GPL 
compatible licenses.
    I don't know of any specific ones (but they are probebly just 
unpopular).

BTW: This license change would put TheKompany.com out of business.

Matthias Ettrich wrote:

>At present, the Qt Free Edition is dual licensed under both the GNU GPL and 
>the QPL.
>
>I'm wondering what the benefit is, except confusing the dual licensing scheme 
>and historical reasons.
>
>As I see it the biggest benefit of the QPL is that you can use the Qt Free 
>Edition to run commerical Qt software dynamically linked, e.g. the Opera 
>browser, and distribute the two together. This makes sense, nobody wants to 
>have two identical libraries in memory just because of different license 
>terms.
>
>Currently this isn't permitted by the GPL, but by the QPL:
>
>   "5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
>   compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you
>   or by others."
>
>However, this could easily be achieved with a little addition to the GNU GPL, 
>practically the reverse case of 
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs
>
>Are there other reasons for the QPL? Is there any code out there under OS 
>licenses that satisfies the requirements of the QPL but not the GNU GPL? 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. 
>
>Is anybody aware of a counter example?
>
>Matthias
>
>
>
>  
>


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