Danny Pansters wrote:
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering.
No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on
freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-)
Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my
last email, and got a positive response that they would look into this. My
impression is that their download page reflects a somewhat clumsy explanation
of what the GPL requires for derivative works, rather than an attempt by
TrollTech to force other people to use the GPL.
--
-Chuck
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance...
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ ... ]
If one were to write your own program, and use it with QT in a fashion
which results in a derivative work, then one may not redistribute the
program without complying with the terms of the GPL.
Exactly. Deriving from Qt and QSA is all you do when you use it.
However, nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be
relicensed under the GPL, it simply requires that code to be under a
GPL-miscable license. For instance, the "new" BSDL (ie, without the
advertizing clause) is fine, as is the MIT/X11 license and others.
We don't require this either:
Make the complete source code of your program available to all end
users Allow all users to re-use, modify and re-distribute the code
Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use and
re-distribution Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed
when it runs
When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the
GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license
(which is what we mean when we says "GPL licensed").
[ ... ]
---------- and ---------
Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance...
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Charles Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The specific problem with OSD-compliance is this phrase:
"Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use"
Hello Chuck,
thanks for clarifying, now I know what you are commenting on.
People can and do sell GPL'ed software all of the time. People can and
do sell services or charge usage fees for systems which use GPL'ed
software.
What you cannot do with GPL'ed software is prevent someone you've sold
the software to from giving it away for free, if they so choose. And
once you've redistributed the software (in either source or binary
form), you must also make the complete source code available for free.
I think you have a point, I'll pass this on to our legal department for
review.
When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since
the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible
license (which is what we mean when we says "GPL licensed").
The GPL is "reciprocal" or "copyleft", yes. I would suggest there is a
significant difference between "you must use a GPL-compatible license
if you redistribute a binary containing Qt" and "you must license your
code under the GPL".
I think the GPL is quite fuzzy when it comes to "inhouse development".
But you are right, development itself does not constitute an act
relevant for the GPL. I was oversimpifying :)
Regards,
Volker
--
Volker Hilsheimer, Support Manager
Trolltech AS, Waldemar Thranes gate 98, NO-0175 Oslo, Norway
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
