On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, John Ryland wrote:
> > That said, licensing issues aren't a red herring to me. I haven't looked
> > at the Qt license, but in the event my coding in my own time does
> > contribute to anything, I'd strongly prefer it contribute to something
> > Free.
>
> No problem. Both Qt/X11 and Qt/Embedded are avaliable under the terms of the
> GPL which is the Free Software Foundations own license. It is Free Software,
> you get the source code to Qt and you are free (beer and speech) to use it
> for making your own GPL applications.
>
> You have said that you would prefer to contribute to Free things. Using Qt to
> make GPL applications is one way to do that. The licensing differences
> therefore should effect your decision.
>
> The other license used by the other libraries is the *Lesser* GPL (LGPL). It
> is known as the Lesser GPL because it encourages people to use GPL software
> for the wrong reasons, because it's generally free as in beer, and not
> because it's free as in speech.
Right you are. I said I hadn't looked at the Qt license, but after your
email I did. I agree that the licensing of Qt is, suprisingly, even
better than that of gtk. I don't mind that there is a seperate
commercial license for non-free developers, they are selling so they
should have no problem with paying, and I like the fact that the GPL
still applies to end users, even end users of non-free apps.
I should say though that I think the LGPL isn't only free as in beer,
it's still free as in speech, it just unfortunately lacks the (imo
desirable) viral impact of the GPL.
Unless I decide to work on a gtk based app like Pan, I'll definately
check out Qt.
cheers,
--
Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
