On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:28:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: > Sorry, this is pure FUD! > > QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, > as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. > Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" - > and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. > It won't make you a misuser!
well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code. I remember people doing this with MySQL long ago - they would develop with mysql, but required the customer to download mysql independently. I presume the same would be the case with software developed with QT - just compile at the customers end and problem is solved. > > And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that > they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's > complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - > the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet! not enough - there are 4 criteria. > > I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation > is > dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled. I too am wondering why I am wasting New Years eve discussing the use of something that I would never use ;-) -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
