On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Friday 03 December 2004 08:40, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 06:28, risqer wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Is Qt free now, I mean"free as in speech" ? > > > > > Dual licenced - GPL/QPL (QT Public licence, akin to the GPL) for > > GPL'd apps, and commercial seat based licencing for commercial > > wrong terminology. U presume that GPL'd software are not commercial.GPLd > applications can be very commercial. The right terminology would be "non > GPL'd". > > This isn't the first time that an incorrect / misleading statement about GPL > / commercial software has appeared on the list. Please take care not to > mislead. > > > apps. Check their website for details. > > >From one of their PRs > "As before, any user who wishes to create proprietary or closed source > software must first purchase a development license from Trolltech." >
JT, Please look before you leap (or comment in this case). Please read the licencing statement on Trolltech's website: >From the page http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html: <snip> The Qt Open Source Editions contain the same code as our Commercial Editions, but are governed by licensing terms that are entirely different. The Qt Open Source Edition is available under two open-source licenses: the GPL (GNU Public License), and the QPL (Q Public License). Both these licenses are suitable for the development of Open Source Software for Linux, Unix, and Mac OS X. The Qt Open Source Editions may be freely copied and distributed, put on FTP sites and CD-ROMs, etc., under the same open-source licenses that they are supplied with. This is completely different from the Qt Commercial Editions which cannot be distributed at all. </snip> They state that the code content of the GPL/QPL edition is identical to the *Commercial Edition*, but however clearly differentiate the commercial edition by labelling it as such. That is what I meant when I made the original post. While I have no desire to get into a flame war over this, I wish you wouldn't use terms like "misleading" and "incorrect" without RTFM. Thanks, Krishnan -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
