Turunen
Cc: Bernhard Lindner , Qt Interest
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi Tuukka,
Does it mean that if we use Qt 5.12.8 LTS commercial license, it is permitted
to use Open source components like third party Qt WebKit module
On Monday, 11 May 2020 05:28:25 PDT Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> "Permitted Software" shall mean any (i) open source software (excluding Open
> Source Qt) that is a) generally available for public in source code form
> without additional cost under any of the licenses approved by Open Source
>
Hi Tuukka,
Does it mean that if we use Qt 5.12.8 LTS commercial license, it is
permitted to use Open source components like third party Qt WebKit module
in conjunction with commercial license?
Could you please let me know in this regard?
Thanks and Regards,
Ramakanth
On Mon, 11 May, 2020,
Hi,
We have now clarified the license agreement to allow use of independent
open-source items in conjunction with commercially license Qt.
The updated agreement (version 4.2.3) states:
"Permitted Software" shall mean any (i) open source software (excluding Open
Source Qt) that is a)
On 4/4/20 5:00 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Apparently TQtC has a healthy commercial relationship with... well,
someone. Unfortunately, Qt OSS seems to be suffering hugely.
I will posit the theory that TQtC does not have a healthy relationship
with "someone." If it did we wouldn't be seeing FUD
On 4/6/20 7:21 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 02:19, Roland Hughes wrote:
On 4/3/20 6:11 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 19:09, Roland Hughes wrote:
Well I hope you didn't use doxygen for your documentation when using
your commercial license. It
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 02:19, Roland Hughes wrote:
> On 4/3/20 6:11 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 19:09, Roland Hughes
>> wrote:
>> Well I hope you didn't use doxygen for your documentation when using
>> your commercial license. It seems you can't use anything built
On 4/3/20 6:11 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 19:09, Roland Hughes wrote:
No, that was never the point of this thread.
Me too:
My first 'commercial' Android app, made with 'pure' commercial Qt SDK,
produced its first crash report:
04-03 11:30:53.384 17079 17115 E
On 02/04/2020 01.39, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> I know licensing in general can be a challenging topic, but I can't
> help thinking if some people are intentionally trying to twist
> things around. At least there are quite many who have not been
> talking about this in a friendly tone.
For me,
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 19:09, Roland Hughes wrote:
> No, that was never the point of this thread.
Me too:
My first 'commercial' Android app, made with 'pure' commercial Qt SDK,
produced its first crash report:
04-03 11:30:53.384 17079 17115 E AndroidRuntime: Process:
On 4/2/20 5:00 AM, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
Unless you are in the situation described by the person who originated this
email thread, I am rather sure you can continue using the GPL version of
Creator.
The whole point of this email thread was situations where the same development
project team
Hi Tuukaa!
> TTT: This part is difficult to generally answer, as it depends how these are
> used and
> what these are used for. Intention of the mixing restriction is to prevent
> cases where
> someone (e.g. a company) uses the open-source version of Qt in cases where
> they should
> use
Hi Bernhard,
See answers inline below.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 2.4.2020, 12.56, "Bernhard Lindner" wrote:
Hello Tuukka,
maybe I missed something. Did you answer the following most critical
question brought up
by Juergen Bocklage-Ryannel and others? From Juergens E-Mail:
Hello Tuukka,
maybe I missed something. Did you answer the following most critical question
brought up
by Juergen Bocklage-Ryannel and others? From Juergens E-Mail:
> > I guess the conflicting terms are these:
> >
> > “Prohibited Combination” shall mean any means to (i) use, combine,
> >
Hi Matthew,
I have tried to be very clear in explaining that the whole point of this email
thread is about mixing open-source and commercial, which not a the most common
use case. I do not know what are the questions that I have tried to avoid
answering. Yes, there are many users of Qt who use
Hi Matthew,
Unless you are in the situation described by the person who originated this
email thread, I am rather sure you can continue using the GPL version of
Creator.
The whole point of this email thread was situations where the same development
project team (creating the same product)
On 31/03/2020 16.12, Krzysztof Kawa wrote:
> This got me thinking about quite a simple case that doesn't seem so
> simple now: Lets say I make a game using open-source licensed Qt, or
> even just open-source licensed Qt Creator. After few years of
> development I decide to publish the game. It
On 31/03/2020 09.46, Andy wrote:
> Even a solo developer needs to hire a lawyer before touching anything
> Qt-related.
Fortunately for the OSS community, you forgot "commercial" in that sentence.
> Once you start trying to codify all the different scenarios in your
> licensing, it becomes toxic
Sorry had to laugh...
> Yup... except I'd probably use some less polite terms than "tone-deaf".
Fair point... tone-deaf can be a bit insulting..
>This sort of thing, and also the recent installer changes, continues to
>make me think that TQtC is *trying* to commit suicide. That, or
On 30/03/2020 13.49, Andy wrote:
> That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
> open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
> open-source tool X"?
That is, indeed, what I am hearing, and also how I would interpret the FAQ.
> This whole thread is
On 31/03/2020 14.16, Francis Herne wrote:
> Having looked through said document, the relevant sections seem to be:
>
>> 1. ... “Prohibited Combination” shall mean any means to (i) use, combine,
> incorporate, link or integrate Licensed Software with any software created
> with or incorporating
On 27/03/2020 08.55, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Correct. All users need to have commercial license. It is not allowed for
> part of the team to use commercial and part use open-source. Even though Qt
> Creator is great, it can feel odd to pay for full Qt license and only use the
> Creator IDE.
>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi Tuukka,
so if the company's product is say modern car's head unit which is built from
many, many blocks and to build one of those (UI) Qt with commercial license was
used then hundreds or
Hi,
What I get from the explanations from Tuukka is that the commercial
contract includes what amounts to legal carpet-bombing aiming to prevent
bad faith actors to use loopholes to their advantage.
The unfortunate consequence is that good faith actors can feel unsafe if
they try to read the
Hi,
I think you are now twisting and mixing things incorrectly.
For example, working in a company who has a commercial license of Qt does not
in any way hinder contributing to Qt.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 1.4.2020, 9.32, "Interest on behalf of Roland Hughes"
wrote:
On 3/30/20
On 31/3/20 6:09 am, Roland Hughes wrote:
Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors
gets tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4,
hitting when cursor is in first column of the line has to put
the cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC
On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:
That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
open-source tool X"?
This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
totally tone-deaf.
Nobody
It's not just you.
On 3/27/20 9:03 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
Hi,
is it just me or this is heading into the wrong way, or at least into the
opposite direction of the market. Most IDE are now free, even the embedded
world start giving IDE away:
xCode is free
vs code is free
Hi,
To me your example does not sound problematic assuming that your application is
like a typical app - a clearly different thing than the store that sells apps
(the store sells a lot of different apps and your is in no way relevant for
operating the store etc).
Also, for any particular real
Hi,
This disclaimer is because every case can be a bit special. We are trying to
avoid a case where someone clearly violates the license and then comes with
explanation, because N.N. said years ago that ABCDC is ok.
The basic rules are simple:
- If you use Qt under open-source, check what
h 2020 at 17.56
To: Tuukka Turunen mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>>, Andy
mailto:asmalo...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "interest@qt-project.org<mailto:interest@qt-project.org>"
mailto:interest@qt-project.org>>
Subject: RE: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with
> The key point is: The Qt Company, just like Trolltech initially and other
> companies in between, does not want mixing open-source Qt and commercial Qt.
> Reason is simple: if mixing was allowed, many companies would use it to pay
> less for their use of Qt.
> It is unfortunate that also real
31.03.2020, 22:57, "Bernhard Lindner" :
> Hi Tuukka!
>
>> I have also tried to explain these, but your tone feels rather aggressive.
>> I do not
>> understand what makes you say: “Even a solo developer needs to hire a
>> lawyer before
>> touching anything Qt-related.”
>
> Because this is
Hi Tuukka!
> I have also tried to explain these, but your tone feels rather aggressive. I
> do not
> understand what makes you say: “Even a solo developer needs to hire a lawyer
> before
> touching anything Qt-related.”
Because this is what users hear in MLs and forums, when they ask about Qt
wants to provide Qt under open-source license. There is no mega
> corporation with deep pockets behind. Development of Qt is funded with the
> revenues gained from commercial licensing.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> Tuukka
>
>
>
>
>
>
&
Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:46 skrev Elvis Stansvik :
>
> Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:40 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest
> :
> >
> > Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > > Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
> > > breaking the contract with Frob,
Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:40 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest
:
>
> Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
> > breaking the contract with Frob, we would have to stipulate our
> > contract with G not only that
Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
breaking the contract with Frob, we would have to stipulate our
contract with G not only that they themselves stick with paid-support
Frob tools, but that they in turn must
Qt under open-source license. There is no mega corporation
> with deep pockets behind. Development of Qt is funded with the revenues
> gained from commercial licensing.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> Tuukka
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jérôme Go
31.03.2020, 20:34, "Tuukka Turunen" :
> Hi Jérôme et al,
>
> This thread has long ago left the original question and become a discussion
> about Qt licensing in general and especially about the point of not mixing
> commercial Qt with open-source version of Qt.
>
> The key point is: The Qt
> ...
>
> Example 6: Company I is building two independent products with separate
> development teams. One development team uses Qt under commercial license to
> create product 1 and the other development team uses Qt under open-source
> license to create product 2. This is ok.
> Hopefully I was
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 18:02:15 BST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I apologise, if I have been unclear with words 'company' and project'. If
> you read the license agreement and faq behind the links I have posted
> multiple times, it should be rather clear what is meant.
> Yours,
>
>
with the revenues gained
from commercial licensing.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Jérôme Godbout
Date: Tuesday 31. March 2020 at 17.56
To: Tuukka Turunen , Andy
Cc: "interest@qt-project.org"
Subject: RE: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
deve
I sent this the other day but it hasn't made it into the list yet. At
least I haven't seen it. Forwarding because it is pertinent
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt,
Commercial developers
Date:
AM
To: Andy
Cc: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi Andy,
You are asking to explicitly define terms like project, company, product. These
are rarely possible to define outside of the generic use of the term and each
or the open-source version.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Andy
Date: Tuesday 31. March 2020 at 16.47
To: Tuukka Turunen
Cc: Giuseppe D'Angelo , "interest@qt-project.org"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
> "This is at the
Il 31/03/20 15:35, Tuukka Turunen ha scritto:
The point of the "Prohibited combination" is to prevent a company or a chain of
companies (like in a typical subcontracting scenario) from making part of the product
with non-paid Qt and part with paid. Qt being as defined in the commercial license
> "This is at the moment not listed as an allowed case..."
And this again is here the Qt company is digging it's own grave.
What constitutes a "product"? If a company has one team working on an open
source library and another team using it in a proprietary application -
what then? What if an
Hi,
The point of the "Prohibited combination" is to prevent a company or a chain of
companies (like in a typical subcontracting scenario) from making part of the
product with non-paid Qt and part with paid. Qt being as defined in the
commercial license agreement, i.e. including tools and
??
-Original Message-
From: Tuukka Turunen
To: Thiago Macieira ; interest
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2020 01:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi Thiago,
As I wrote a bit earlier, for completely independent projects
Hi Thiago,
As I wrote a bit earlier, for completely independent projects/products it is
fine that one is using commercial and one open-source. This is much more likely
to happen in a big corporation than a small company, but possible scenario in
both.
Note that these really should not be
On 3/31/20 1:22 PM, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
For completely independent projects/products this is fine. Note that these
really should not be same or in practice the same - or in any way depending,
relating, using etc each other as defined in the license agreement.
See licensing FAQ question 2.7
On Monday, 30 March 2020 16:59:11 -03 Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> > Please read the commercial license agreement and the licensing FAQ. The
> > restriction has nothing to do with open-source licensing. It is about a
> > company, who is using a commercially licensed Qt not to use parts of the
> > same
Hi,
For completely independent projects/products this is fine. Note that these
really should not be same or in practice the same - or in any way depending,
relating, using etc each other as defined in the license agreement.
See licensing FAQ question 2.7 at https://www.qt.io/faq/ and License
Dear Tuukka,
Let us take a concrete example of a hypothetical company. The company has 10
software engineers and 2 projects.
Engineers 1,2,3,4,5 work on proprietary project A that uses Qt commercial
license. Each engineer (1,2,3,4,5) has a commercial Qt license assigned to that
engineer.
-Michaël Celerier
> Date: Friday 27. March 2020 at 17.46
> To: Tuukka Turunen
> Cc: Giuseppe D'Angelo , "interest@qt-project.org"
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
> developers
>
>
>
> > Answer to this is:
product. So
> both need to be used with same type of license: open-source or commercial.
>
> Yours,
> Tuukka
>
>
> From: Andy
> Date: Monday 30. March 2020 at 20.50
> To: Tuukka Turunen
> Cc: Giuseppe D'Angelo , "interest@qt-project.org&q
te: Monday 30. March 2020 at 20.50
To: Tuukka Turunen
Cc: Giuseppe D'Angelo , "interest@qt-project.org"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an open-source
tool? It says
Hi Michael,
Please read the commercial license agreement and the licensing FAQ. The
restriction has nothing to do with open-source licensing. It is about a
company, who is using a commercially licensed Qt not to use parts of the same
licensed Qt product under open-source license. If there was
27. March 2020 at 17.29
> *To: *Tuukka Turunen
> *Cc: *Giuseppe D'Angelo , "
> interest@qt-project.org"
> *Subject: *Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt
> Commercial developers
>
>
>
> "This seems to become a longer thread than I
[Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
> Answer to this is: No, it is not allowed to mix commercial "Licensed
> Software" and the open-source versions provided by The Qt Company in the same
> project.
What about open-source versions provide
Den fre 27 mars 2020 kl 20:08 skrev :
>
> Hi.
>
> Tuuka clearly stated, that you wouldn't violate GPL of the (OS-)
> QtCreator, **but** you'd violate your commercial contract with Qt.
>
> If the commercial contract says, you are not allowed to have a cat in
> the house and you've signed that
I'm not sure how it works worldwide, but for example in Czech Republic.
Contract for one product can't forbid you to use another product. It is not
legal.
Commercial QtCreator and Open Source QtCreator are two different products.
We are talking about two people who both are editing same code (not
Hi.
Tuuka clearly stated, that you wouldn't violate GPL of the (OS-)
QtCreator, **but** you'd violate your commercial contract with Qt.
If the commercial contract says, you are not allowed to have a cat in
the house and you've signed that contract - then youd better get rid of
Garfield.
It
OK, Here goes the explanations of how to interoperate with Qt Software
packages. IANAL. We will start from the easy and work our way towards difficult.
QtCreator: QtCreator is free. You, as a developer of software, can use
QtCreator as your IDE to develop your own software. The GPL license of
Am Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:11:16 +0100
schrieb Jean-Michaël Celerier :
> It is also the license of the binaries that you can download there :
> https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qtcreator/4.11/4.11.1/
>
> And it states quite succintly :
> "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
It is also the license of the binaries that you can download there :
https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qtcreator/4.11/4.11.1/
And it states quite succintly :
"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
unmodified Program."
> but if you just use qtcreator, just
Am Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:45:55 +0100
schrieb Jean-Michaël Celerier :
> > Answer to this is: No, it is not allowed to mix commercial "Licensed
> Software" and the open-source versions provided by The Qt Company in the
> same project.
>
> What about open-source versions provided by another
> Answer to this is: No, it is not allowed to mix commercial "Licensed
Software" and the open-source versions provided by The Qt Company in the
same project.
What about open-source versions provided by another distributor, e.g.
someone doing apt install qtcreator ?
Also how is that compatible
"This seems to become a longer thread than I envisioned, as apparently my
original response was not clear enough."
As I pointed out - it's because you're not answering the question that was
asked, and therefore confusing the issue.
"Is it still possible for the developers who don't use Qt
Hi,
This seems to become a longer thread than I envisioned, as apparently my
original response was not clear enough.
In general, if there are any questions or concerns related to licensing, check
the FAQ: https://www.qt.io/faq/
If you are looking for advise on licensing, I recommend either
On 27/03/2020 15:03, Tomas Konir wrote:
Sorry for possible misunderstanding, but i think, that original question
was little different.
Question was:
There is company, where are two developer groups:
Group1: Use QtCreator and works with QT libraries (and works with other
code which not use
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jakub Narolewski
> *Date: *Friday 27. March 2020 at 15.27
> *To: *Jérôme Godbout , Tuukka Turunen <
> tuukka.turu...@qt.io>, Vyacheslav Lanovets , "
> interest@qt-project.org"
> *Subject: *RE: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for co
2020 at 15.27
> *To: *Jérôme Godbout , Tuukka Turunen <
> tuukka.turu...@qt.io>, Vyacheslav Lanovets , "
> interest@qt-project.org"
> *Subject: *RE: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt
> Commercial developers
>
>
>
> Maybe I m
;mailto:godbo...@amotus.ca>
Sent: 27 March 2020 14:22
To: Tuukka Turunen<mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>; Vyacheslav
Lanovets<mailto:s...@lanovets.ru>;
interest@qt-project.org<mailto:interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commerci
; Vyacheslav Lanovets; interest@qt-project.orgSubject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers Hi, is it just me or this is heading into the wrong way, or at least into the opposite direction of the market. Most IDE are now free, even the embedded world start
; interest@qt-project.orgSubject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers Hi, is it just me or this is heading into the wrong way, or at least into the opposite direction of the market. Most IDE are now free, even the embedded world start giving IDE away
-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Tuukka Turunen
Sent: March 27, 2020 8:56 AM
To: Vyacheslav Lanovets ; interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi,
Correct. All users need to have commercial license. It is not allowed for part
Hi,
Correct. All users need to have commercial license. It is not allowed for part
of the team to use commercial and part use open-source. Even though Qt Creator
is great, it can feel odd to pay for full Qt license and only use the Creator
IDE.
We have been thinking about selling Qt Creator
25.03.2020, 22:09, "Vyacheslav Lanovets" :
> Hi,
>
> Situation.
>
> A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
> write applications in Qt for iOS.
> There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
> use Qt libraries.
> They talk to each other and
80 matches
Mail list logo
