On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 01:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Saturday 04 December 2004 09:42, Srinivasan Krishnan wrote: > > 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 > > I have not only RTFL but written to Trolltech about the utterly misleading > statement on commercial / GPL software. They replied with a wishy washy thing > about trying to look into the matter (apparently they are still trying more > than a year later). But the PR is very clear. > > > > > 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. > > I stand by both statements. IMNHO Trolltech's attempt to explain the > difference between GPL'd / Commercial software is misleading and incorrect > and your mail does not clarify this, which is akin to "agreement". > > The fact is that GPL'd software can be very commercial and can be distributed > for any consideration deemed fit except changing the terms of the GPL.
You're correct in that GPL software can be "commercial", meaning it can be sold for a profit, as long as the transaction adheres to the terms of the licence. However, most companies, including Trolltech, use the term commercial for closed source/ properietary software, and indeed, that is the sense that most people use it. Although this usage is not a particularly happy one, it is the way most of the computer industry looks at the GPL. Let me end this thread by saying that while I find your defence of the commercial possibilities under GPL admirable, unfortunately the term "commercial software" has come to denote properietary/ closed source, and it is going to be exceedingly difficult to change. BTW, you want to watch your line length. Regards, Krishnan -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
