On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ravindra Jaju <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link: > > > > a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL." > > vs. > > b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, > there > > would be problems." > > > > Licensing is all about exact semantics. If you want to talk about > > Trolltech's good intentions/motivation/contribution, I've got nothing to > > say > > to that. But going by the information on their site, they are > deliberately > > keeping things ambiguous. Should be reason for *some* concern IMO. > > Guess it's getting a bit difficult over email - I have a suggestion. Either > find me a potential problem in the following scenario If it were so, this list would be history. BTW, you haven't actually respond to my point (yet). Do you still not see any contradiction in the above mentioned statements?? <begin> > I use QT under GPL. I write code using QT, and whenever I give away this > code, I > ensure that the code I write is also available under GPL. I may decide to > hold back > the source-code, if I am not charging for it. But I have the freedom to > charge for my > code, in which case the source needs to be given away too. > <end> > The problem is that your scenario is not *quite* what we call GPL. As per GPL, I HAVE to give away the source(for free as in beer/freedom) if I am distributing the binaries - it has nothing to do with whether or not I am charging anything for the binaries. Hence we say that QT is "mis"-using the terms GNU & GPL repeatedly. Please read the GNU GPL once before responding. > <begin> > You come up with a scenario wherein a user of the Q toolkit can be troubled > by anyone, including Trolltech. > <end> > I (naively thinking that QT is GPL'ed) develop my software using it. Then I release my code under GPL(as required) and also simultaneously start selling built/packaged versions. Trolltech can still sue me saying that I am using the incorrect licence - I should have a commercial licence from Trolltech if I want to make money ... inspite of the fact that my softwared is GPL'ed. Regards, farazs -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
