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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Eye of the Tiger
From:       Warwick Allison <warwick () troll ! no>
Date:       1998-11-19 16:23:02
[Download RAW message or body]

Alan Cox wrote:
>So I can ship commercial software in binary only form providing ...

Sure, but think about how you are going to develop that binary.
If it is independent of Qt, you should have no difficulties.

SCENARIO 1:
   You write a library that does Optical Character Recognition.  You
   sell it, perhaps including a Motif-based front-end to it.  One of
   your customers writes a Qt front-end, using Qt under the QPL,
   and your software under whatever license your libOCR has.  They
   distribute the Qt front-end for free.  

This scenario would not be possible if Qt was licensed only under the GPL.

>"If you write commercial binary only apps you must buy Qt/Commercial"

> or "If you glue third party code to a Qt linked app and the third
>party code isn't 'free' [QPL definition for once] then hey its not
>your fault you can still distribute it.  

>Which is it ?

The latter.  The GNU GPL is annoying and useless in this regard.  If
anyone tries to tell you that GNU GPL-licensed code can link with Xlib,
read the GNU GPL again.  If your business depends on it, see a lawyer.  

--
Warwick

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