On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote:
> > this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to
> > contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel
> > me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release
> > it under the GPL only??
>
> They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same
> respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't
> use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux
> kernel. So how QT is different here?
as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build
applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application
using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I
have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL?
Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be
released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release
the software under GPL???
>
> > "The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
> > Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and
> > 3 ("GPL")."
> >
> > apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the
> > open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed
> > by the GPL ...'
>
> That is the property of a copyleft license. There is nothing new Nokia
> has done here.
Nokia? how did nokia come into the picture?
>
> > So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD
> > license!. So what license is QT released under?
>
> It is because GPL requires all derivative works to use the same
> license. Nothing new Nokia invented.
so any application developed using QT is a derivative work? And again, where
does Nokia come in?
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
