Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 2/12/2009 12:44 PM, Sundance wrote: Giovanni Bajo wrote: You're basically restating your previous point, without debating mine. The language choice affects companies much more than £350 / programmer. Hi Giovanni, hi Phil, hi everybody, Giovanni, I'm... a bit uncomfortable writing this because I generally agree with you, and don't want to come across as confrontational, but I think there is still something worth pointing out that I feel you left out from your reasoning. In my (limited) experience, a major parameter in language choice in medium- to large-size companies is developer availability. Languages for which developers are easier to find get a significant advantage (hence the commercial success of PHP, for instance). From this, it follows that fostering a broad ecosystem of developers does help your language in the end, so those small-scales developers for whom £350 is a big deal do actually matter to you, indirectly. Actually, I think it goes even more so for those developers that only start dabbling for whom the option of eventually relicensing their product and selling it might make a difference. So, no LGPL for PyQt might mean less small-scale developers picking up Python for their Qt development, which in turn means less Python developers out there as a whole and a lesser chance for bigger companies to eventually settle for Python as their chosen tech. Or something to that extent anyway. Hard to tell how much weight that reasoning actually carries in practice. Not too much, I hope (but I dare not be optimistic). Sill, that's why I, for one, *hope* PyQt will eventually end up LGPL in a commercially sustainable manner (the best option being sponsorship from Nokia... one can dream!). But that's only a hope, one I barely dare voice at that, and is no way a demand. :) Sundance, I hear your voice loud and clear. I understand your point. I myself would like very much a LGPL version of PyQt, but I just feel that what you are describing is a really small fraction of non-customers which simply won't have an incentive to become... non-customers but simply free users of PyQt -- on the other hand, a LGPL of PyQt would surely means existing customers and potential customers that stop being so for Riverbank. In other words, there is no winning balance here; and if a choice is to be made, I wouldn't base it on that fraction of small non-customer developers which would just contribute to create a slightly larger ecosystem of developers. Anyway, I'm just expressing my (commercial) opinions on the matter, but it is Phil that knows better his customers and what would happen with a license switch. As for myself, I would strongly prefer a change in the development workflow to make it more open (as discussed in a previous mail of mine) rather than a change in license. I believe this would contribute it more to safer and widely adopted library than the license change itself. -- Giovanni Bajo Develer S.r.l. http://www.develer.com ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Sundance sunda...@ierne.eu.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:05:34PM +0100, Knapp wrote: Sometimes I think it would be good to have a commercial license that says please pay us after 2 years if you have the cash, perhaps with interest to make up for the risk we took on you. This is an interesting point! May I suggest that you send it to the mailing-list instead of my personal address so that everybody can enjoy it? :) -- S. LOL, Thought I did! -- Douglas E Knapp Why do we live? ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:29:53 +0530, Rajeev J Sebastian wrote: How about when people (who do not code, and have not coded in their entire life) also demand that your work be made free (as in free speech) so that they can profit enormously from it ? That also strikes me as being cruel. I realise the legal requirements of making software using GPL'ed libraries and you dont have to repeat the various arguments such as feel free not to use GPLed stuff; I just wanted to whine about the existence of this corrollary which is all too true and exists in this world (especially here in India). I think it helps to separate the people who want Free software (as in freedom) from the people who want free software (at zero cost). It seems to me that there are many more people who just want software at zero cost than there are those who want Free software. It's just that Free software happens to come without a price tag in most situations, and for many people, that's a happy coincidence because that's what they're really looking for. In other words, there's an overlap. GPL seems to be going after some kind of theory of software freedom, but at the same time does not protect the creators of software from people who profit from it in a legally permissible way, but which is still financially, emotionally and ethically wrong. My impression is that there are a lot of people out there who dislike the GPL because it places restrictions on what they can do, and many of these people like the LGPL because there are fewer restrictions. Some people won't even go near the LGPL. There are various reasons for this, some of which are clearly stated, and others which are often behind the scenes. Even though you weren't comparing the two licenses, it would be interesting to hear if you think the LGPL is worse than the GPL because of this added permissiveness, or if you think it is better because it gives you more options. David ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Jim Bublitz jbubl...@nwinternet.com wrote: On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:41:02 pm Knapp wrote: Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is something you should discuss with a lawyer. Andreas Yes, all is clear now, thanks. This bit about the lawyer always strikes me as funny. I am looking at releasing a product that will be sold in the USA, Canada, England, Australia and many other English speaking places. It will also be sold in other countries as the translators get things done, perhaps Germany first. The product is expected to cost 20 to 50 USD and sell a few thousand units per county, if it goes well. So how much does this lawyer that knows all about these licenses and there effects in all those counties cost? Where do you find him? Considering you're going to generate huge profits from this product, it wouldn't hurt to ask the author of a fundamental component of the product how much a commercial license would cost and pay for it, and then you wouldn't have to worry about GPL, LGPL or any of that stuff. I've never minded people using my software for free - even commercially. I just hate it when they whine about software being free, but not on terms where they can profit enormously from other people's work. It's the whining, not the profiting, that I object to. How about when people (who do not code, and have not coded in their entire life) also demand that your work be made free (as in free speech) so that they can profit enormously from it ? That also strikes me as being cruel. I realise the legal requirements of making software using GPL'ed libraries and you dont have to repeat the various arguments such as feel free not to use GPLed stuff; I just wanted to whine about the existence of this corrollary which is all too true and exists in this world (especially here in India). GPL seems to be going after some kind of theory of software freedom, but at the same time does not protect the creators of software from people who profit from it in a legally permissible way, but which is still financially, emotionally and ethically wrong. Regards Rajeev J Sebastian ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 2/11/2009 4:32 AM, Brian Kelley wrote: What are the alternative options so PyQt can be LGPLd? I can see three: 1. PyQt is LGPL’d but support costs money. (I would still pay for support, not that I actually have needed it, mind you, Phil is usually on top of the ball as far as I’m concerned) I don't think there could be enough business coming off support for PyQt, unless Phil also leaves this mailing list. 2. Phil LGPL’s PyQt and abandons it for us to support since he has no income from the project. Personally, I’m not actually happy with this one as I (selfishly) imagine it has the most disruption. That's because PyQt has a bus-factor of 1. If Phil is gone for any reason, the project is basically dead and it would be very hard to find a new reasonable maintainer. There are a few reasons why this happens; I'll name the main ones: * the SVN where it's developed is not public, so it's impossible to investigate the history of the project, which is vital to dig into an existing code-base. * Internal implementation choices are never discussed in mailing list. There is some discussion about public APIs or design choices (like the roadmap), but the implemention of PyQt and SIP is a black-box for most people. I consider myself familiar with PyQt and SIP source code (as I have provided trivial patches and bugfixes to it), but I still understand them barely. * PyQt is automatically generated through a tool called MetaSIP which was never released in any form to the public. Without MetaSIP, one would have to manually maintain PyQt in sync with Qt, which is not impossible but surely much harder (given how large is Qt nowadays). I am of course not whining here, just citing facts. I would be pleased if it was possible to migrate to a different development model where there are more PyQt maintainers (keeping Phil's own business intact, of course). 3. Nokia realizes that PyQt is indispensible to KDE and pays Phil to keep up support. (I can dream, can’t I?) I think that, if anything, Nokia would just make a takeover bid on Riverbank and SIP/PyQt, so to start maintaining and shipping PyQt just like they do with Jambi. Anyway, I appreciate Phil’s effort, and as long as I get new versions of PyQt I’ll be happy whatever he chooses. And to Mr. Knapp, have you considered GPL’ing your software and also selling it? You know you can do both, and you don’t have to pay a dime for Qt or PyQt. If it is a content driven application, the content does not have to be GPL’d, just the source. I.e. While people can distribute the source code to whatever engine you produce, they cannot distribute assets the engine uses. Most users will never know, nor care about the difference. That can't be done on most software. I would instead suggest Mr. Knapp to evaluate buying a license of PyQt. Now that Qt is LGPL, the price for building a commercial PyQt solution is really really low. I can't understand why it wouldn't be a suitable solution for his software. -- Giovanni Bajo Develer S.r.l. http://www.develer.com ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 2/11/2009 7:57 AM, Ville M. Vainio wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Knapp magick.c...@gmail.com wrote: Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) As said many times before, *nothing has been announced on this yet*. Even if PyQt wasn't released under LGPL, QtRuby people would never pass the opportunity to screw python by going LGPL (thus making ruby the preferred dynamic language for gui development). So I don't think you'd need to go for C++ in any case. I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just want to play around with Qt, but those can already use the GPL version. So, no, I don't think that *any* decision with QtRuby can reasoably affect the business potential user base of PyQt. -- Giovanni Bajo Develer S.r.l. http://www.develer.com ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo ra...@develer.com wrote: I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just want to play around with Qt, but those can already use the GPL version. Not necessarily change, but it may effect the initial selection. I am not really interested in pursuing this discussion further (it has been done enough times already), but the licensing of Qt is the reason people/orgs chose other toolkits over Qt, despite technical inferiority. And everybody seems to be pretty enthusiastic about the license change, so it's not something to laugh off, really. Be it as it may, if ruby had a LGPL Qt and Python didn't, it would be real technical plus for ruby and minus for python (as opposed to other benefits claimed by the ruby community, which are typically fictious). If developing in Python costs you 350pounds / developer and ruby and c++ are free, many companies would definitely weigh this against python. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 2/11/2009 4:09 PM, Ville M. Vainio wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo ra...@develer.com wrote: I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just want to play around with Qt, but those can already use the GPL version. Not necessarily change, but it may effect the initial selection. I am not really interested in pursuing this discussion further (it has been done enough times already), but the licensing of Qt is the reason people/orgs chose other toolkits over Qt, despite technical inferiority. And everybody seems to be pretty enthusiastic about the license change, so it's not something to laugh off, really. Be it as it may, if ruby had a LGPL Qt and Python didn't, it would be real technical plus for ruby and minus for python (as opposed to other benefits claimed by the ruby community, which are typically fictious). If developing in Python costs you 350pounds / developer and ruby and c++ are free, many companies would definitely weigh this against python. You're basically restating your previous point, without debating mine. The language choice affects companies much more than £350 / programmer. If they have Python programmers, you need to teach them Ruby and make them productive on Ruby, and evaluate if all your other 3rd-party needs (besided Qt) are covered by Ruby. I think we agree that this is not going to cost less than £350 / programmer. If your company has never used neither Python nor Ruby, I don't think the decision will be taken on the basis of the Qt binding licensing cost. There are other factors (like, eg., the availability of consultants on either language, the availability of other libraries, the easyness of deplying the application to your target, an internal technical evaluation process of both languages, etc.) which are going to affect the decision much more than the license cost *and* are going to cost *themselves* more than £350 / programmer. I would be surprised if a single company preferred QtRuby over PyQt just because of the license cost. And I won't be suprised if the QtRuby people will push this as a marketing argument though -- I just find it incredibly weak. -- Giovanni Bajo Develer S.r.l. http://www.develer.com ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:21:29 +0200, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Phil Thompson p...@riverbankcomputing.com wrote: The selection of a language happens much earlier than the selection of a GUI toolkit. A GUI toolkit is (or at least should be) a relatively minor Sometimes, the gui toolkit is selected for you. This may not be true for pc software, but my personal interest here lies in mobile device development, and Maemo / S60 platforms. Both are moving to have Qt as the primary native toolkit, and that's really what your program should use to integrate natively with the rest of the gui (read: it's most likely that you will be paid for a project that requires you to use Qt). Traditionally, the sdk's to both of these platforms have been free-as-in-beer-for-commercial-development, and that expectation may still remain - someone could with few hundred developers under him could make a strategic choice based on that alone. I'm not necessarily arguing that it's a good choice, but it's just something that may happen, given the basic human psychology (cheapskate knee-jerk reaction). This is lots of will/would/could, but that's because Qt is just starting to happen in my universe. Mostly in C++, but I think it would be nice if Python gained a strong foothold here as well. Now that you have qualified your context I can agree with you. But, for the moment at least, that's a very small part of the developer base. Phil ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
[PyQt] LGPL license.
I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to pay for a license? -- Douglas E Knapp Why do we live? ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote: I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to pay for a license? Please read the archive, this has already come up once or twice this year. Andreas -- You prefer the company of the opposite sex, but are well liked by your own. ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat ap...@gmx.de wrote: On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote: I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to pay for a license? Please read the archive, this has already come up once or twice this year. Andreas Thanks for that important point about the archives. I did read it! It is as clear as mud. QT is LGPL KDE is LGPL pyKDE is ??? LGPL??? pyQT is not?? and never will be but maybe someone named Phil is still thinking about it? That is the best I can tell by all that but really someone could just be straight and answer my question. Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) Anyway answer like that are about as helpful and friendly as RTFM. -- Douglas E Knapp Why do we live? ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Knapp magick.c...@gmail.com wrote: pyQT is not?? and never will be but maybe someone named Phil is still thinking about it? Anyway answer like that are about as helpful and friendly as RTFM. mputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt Phil is the person who made PyQt ... so when asking you to check archives, i think it was also a hint not to force the issue and let Phil make his own determination and decision on it and that when he's ready he will notify on the mailing list one way or another. Obviously, this was lost on you :P Regards Rajeev J Sebastian ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 10.02.09 22:10:05, Knapp wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat ap...@gmx.de wrote: On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote: I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to pay for a license? Please read the archive, this has already come up once or twice this year. Thanks for that important point about the archives. I did read it! It is as clear as mud. QT is LGPL KDE is LGPL kdelibs is lgpl, other parts of KDE may use other licenses (such as GPL, BSD etc) pyKDE is ??? LGPL??? Dunno, check the projects website (if there is one) or the source code. pyQT is not?? Thats the current state, it is however dual-licensed just as Qt was before QtSoftware added the LGPL license for Qt4.5. and never will be but maybe someone named Phil is still thinking about it? If you check out the PyQt website you'll notice that Phil is the author of PyQt, so yes he's the one to decide what will happen to PyQt's licensing (if anything happens at all). That is the best I can tell by all that but really someone could just be straight and answer my question. Well, apparently you already did understand everything that one needs to understand. PyQt might or might not be licensed under LGPL in a future version, depending on the decision of its author. Crystal clear now? No? What exactly is unclear? Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is something you should discuss with a lawyer. Andreas -- You are fighting for survival in your own sweet and gentle way. ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
Knapp wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat ap...@gmx.de wrote: On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote: I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to pay for a license? Please read the archive, this has already come up once or twice this year. Andreas Thanks for that important point about the archives. I did read it! It is as clear as mud. QT is LGPL KDE is LGPL pyKDE is ??? LGPL??? pyQT is not?? and never will be but maybe someone named Phil is still thinking about it? That is the best I can tell by all that but really someone could just be straight and answer my question. Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) No no, just join the wxPython group ! cheers, Stef ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is something you should discuss with a lawyer. Andreas Yes, all is clear now, thanks. This bit about the lawyer always strikes me as funny. I am looking at releasing a product that will be sold in the USA, Canada, England, Australia and many other English speaking places. It will also be sold in other countries as the translators get things done, perhaps Germany first. The product is expected to cost 20 to 50 USD and sell a few thousand units per county, if it goes well. So how much does this lawyer that knows all about these licenses and there effects in all those counties cost? Where do you find him? -- Douglas E Knapp Why do we live? ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 10.02.09 22:49:57, Stef Mientki wrote: Knapp wrote: Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) No no, just join the wxPython group ! Hmm, personally if I have to decide between using the same toolkit in a language I don't know well and using a different toolkit in a language I do know I'd probably choose learning a different language most of the time. So far the toolkits I've learned always differ rather much in how they work and how you have to do things with them, which makes (again for me personally) a much steeper learning curve than just adapting to a new language syntax (and maybe a few new semantics, but those are really the exception in common programming languages). Andreas -- Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks. ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Tue Feb 10 21:49:57 GMT 2009, Stef Mientki wrote: On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote: That is the best I can tell by all that but really someone could just be straight and answer my question. Are you in a hurry or something? Qt won't be LGPL until the final 4.5 release so there's still plenty of time for an answer to this question. Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) Really, the brackets are the least annoying part of developing in C++. OK, so Qt takes a lot of the other problems away, so maybe the brackets are relatively noticeable, but you'll learn to enjoy them over time. Embrace the brackets, I say! No no, just join the wxPython group ! That's very sneaky, Stef, but it sounds like you are implying that wxPython is the number one second-choice framework for Python developers. ;-) David ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:41:02 pm Knapp wrote: Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is something you should discuss with a lawyer. Andreas Yes, all is clear now, thanks. This bit about the lawyer always strikes me as funny. I am looking at releasing a product that will be sold in the USA, Canada, England, Australia and many other English speaking places. It will also be sold in other countries as the translators get things done, perhaps Germany first. The product is expected to cost 20 to 50 USD and sell a few thousand units per county, if it goes well. So how much does this lawyer that knows all about these licenses and there effects in all those counties cost? Where do you find him? Considering you're going to generate huge profits from this product, it wouldn't hurt to ask the author of a fundamental component of the product how much a commercial license would cost and pay for it, and then you wouldn't have to worry about GPL, LGPL or any of that stuff. I've never minded people using my software for free - even commercially. I just hate it when they whine about software being free, but not on terms where they can profit enormously from other people's work. It's the whining, not the profiting, that I object to. Jim ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On 2/10/09 6:13 PM, Jim Bublitz jbubl...@nwinternet.com wrote: I've never minded people using my software for free - even commercially. I just hate it when they whine about software being free, but not on terms where they can profit enormously from other people's work. It's the whining, not the profiting, that I object to. I was going to keep my mouth shut, but I have to agree with this sentiment. I don't envy Phil this choice. On the one hand we all love something that is free. On the other, Phil has put an immense amount of work into PyQt and as a paying commercial user, I think it is a fair trade as far as I'm concerned. I.e. I give Phil money and he makes sure new versions of Qt work with python and I can use them in a commercial product. What are the alternative options so PyQt can be LGPLd? I can see three: 1. PyQt is LGPL'd but support costs money. (I would still pay for support, not that I actually have needed it, mind you, Phil is usually on top of the ball as far as I'm concerned) 2. Phil LGPL's PyQt and abandons it for us to support since he has no income from the project. Personally, I'm not actually happy with this one as I (selfishly) imagine it has the most disruption. 3. Nokia realizes that PyQt is indispensible to KDE and pays Phil to keep up support. (I can dream, can't I?) Anyway, I appreciate Phil's effort, and as long as I get new versions of PyQt I'll be happy whatever he chooses. And to Mr. Knapp, have you considered GPL'ing your software and also selling it? You know you can do both, and you don't have to pay a dime for Qt or PyQt. If it is a content driven application, the content does not have to be GPL'd, just the source. I.e. While people can distribute the source code to whatever engine you produce, they cannot distribute assets the engine uses. Most users will never know, nor care about the difference. I have successfully done this on an OSX web-based database that sold for about $1000 a pop. Buy the data, the source is free, pretty much. Brian Kelley ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 19:44:12 pm Arthur Pemberton wrote: And I empahisze with Jim and having to deal with whinners. They get into every open source project and drain the lead developers of their drive -- it's pretty unfortunate. I hope Jim does what is best for him, as much as I would like an LGPL PyQt at some point soon. Just to be clear - I don't have anything to do with PyQt. That's all Phil, and has been from the start. I did maintain PyKDE (also initiated by Phil) for 6 or 7 years. Simon Edwards has taken it over in the last 6 months or so, and seems to be doing a terrific job, especially since he took it over when it was half done. Having had fantastic support from Phil from before I even started PyKDE, I appreciate how much effort he puts into PyQt, and how much he has enhanced it over the years (and broken PyKDE with every enhancement :) ). I'm going to be starting a PyQt4 project soon, and I really appreciate having it available. Jim ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
Re: [PyQt] LGPL license.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Knapp magick.c...@gmail.com wrote: Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped never to face again. :-) As said many times before, *nothing has been announced on this yet*. Even if PyQt wasn't released under LGPL, QtRuby people would never pass the opportunity to screw python by going LGPL (thus making ruby the preferred dynamic language for gui development). So I don't think you'd need to go for C++ in any case. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio ___ PyQt mailing listPyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
