On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 5:02:25 pm jtd wrote: > > well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is > > no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source > > version to develop and distribute closed source code. > > While your contention is correct (ref your second para), that is not > what i am getting at. What i am saying is that troltech's contention > that i cannot commercially distribute gpl software is rubbish. > Trolltech is implying that i cannot sell gpl software because their > licence is gpl + restrictions. > Thus a person wanting to profit by selling a package with GPLv2 /3 QT > libs under the terms of the gpl cannot do so because trolltech has > licenced QT as gpl + trolltech restrictions. In which case QT is not > gpl and trolltech is conning the public by pretending their licence > is gpl. > And if it is gpl i can sell commercially with source and no additional > restriction as per the gpl. > > Which ever way you look at it the are playing a con game, as far as > their licence page goes.
Agree - they have a license section which forms part of the code they distribute. This has the GPL quoted verbatim, giving all the rights GPL gives with only one modification relating to openssl - THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. There is also a file named OPENSOURCE-NOTICE.TXT. Here they have tacked on some conditions - but these conditions do not form part of the license - if they did, then it is doubtful whether either FSF or OSF would recognise their license. So the con game is also there in the code itself. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
