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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: HOW TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE
From:       Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date:       1999-09-12 20:18:58
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0300, mao wrote:
>     I know that if I use qt free edition I must to release my softwares as
> free and open source and if I use qt professional edition I can release my
> softwares as commercial and shareware.
> 
>     I want to know how can I release commercial softwares if I use KDE
> library, because I want to buy qt professional edition and develop KDE
> applications, but I would like to use KDE library. Is it possible? How?

Open Source does not mean non-commercial.  You can actually sell software
compatible with the Open Source Definition if you want.  Red Hat makes a
handsome profit selling software and they didn't even write most of what
they're selling!  =p  As long as the source is available under a free
license you should be okay in terms of Qt's free license (at least Qt2's
license--I'd have to look for Qt1)

If you use the GPL (actually one of the better licenses you CAN use if you
plan to sell it in _most_ cases (not all)) you will need specific
permission someplace that Qt need not be considered part of the program
covered by the GPL for the purposes of clause 2(b) of the GPL.  There's a
big, nasty, evil can of worms waiting for you if you want to ask why it's
necessary or if it's necessary or anything like that, so just do it
quietly and call it good.  =>



The GPL compatibility issue has been a major source of frustration to just
about everyone involved I think.  There is a lot of hostility around
caused by people on both sides of a massive argument, many of which are
IMO not at all or at least very poorly informed and start flaming before
they even know what they're talking about.  A lot of people are very angry
and probably will remain that way for a long time to come.  A number of
the people who have a right to be angry over it are working for Troll
Tech, so don't expect a QPL 1.1 or something that's compatible with the
GPL this week---I somehow doubt you'll get it.  =>

I still hold out hope that Qt's license will one day be compatible with
the GPL, but it's not likely to happen until some time after they stop
getting letters from clueless morons flaming them for daring to use a
license that hasn't been blessed by the Most Holy Richard Stallman (you'd
better plant your forehead on the ground when you say that or you'll be
stoned as a heretic) which _I'm_ still getting, so I'm sure they are.

All that said, I like the GPL.  It's a great license for most things and
the ideal license for some things.  (The GPL's protection keeps M$ from
essentially stealing Linux the way they're stealing perl and talking about
stealing Apache..)  Unfortunately many of its best defenders are also its
biggest detractors.  Those at LWE last month in San Jose can probably
guess why I consider RMS to be one of the GPL's biggest detractors after
listening to him graciously accept (for some versions of "graciously"?) a
$25000 cash award ....

Okay, I'm done ranting now.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>             Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77  8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES! YES! YES! Oh, YES! (ooops, I sound like Meg Ryan ;-)
        -- Ian Nandhra


[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

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