On 2013-02-21 10:18, Steve Simmons wrote:
On 21/02/2013 11:08, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:20 PM, PythonAB <pyt...@rgbaz.eu> wrote:
On 21 feb 2013, at 04:45, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 02/20/2013 12:44 AM, Steve Simmons wrote:
2. Qt isn't 'free' (depending on what you are going to be doing with it)
- read the licensing rules.
How so? It's LGPL. You can't get much freer than that. Both in terms of
code and developer freedom, and proprietary freedom.
well that can be discussed... (BSD, MIT, Apache, CDDL)
You can argue about which is the "best" license to use (I don't
personally like the GPL and LGPL, and don't use them on my creations),
but Steve's description that its free status depends on what you're
doing with it implies a fairly major violation of the principles of
software freedom, which I would expect *all* the popular open-source
licenses to be correct on.
ChrisA
I downloaded my copy when Qt was in Nokia's hands at which time there was a paid
for license for commercial development and a 'free' community license. I
thought that situation remained but if things have changed since the change of
ownership (guardianship?), then I apologise for being out of date - as so many
parts of me are :-)
The situation has not substantively changed, but your description of it is not
really accurate. There was and still is a "commercial license" which allows for
completely proprietary development without needing to allow end users to relink
the application against user-supplied versions of Qt. The free license is the
LGPL, which really is Free under all common understandings of that term. You can
use the LGPL license for commercial and otherwise-proprietary applications. You
just have to follow the terms of the LGPL like normal.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
