On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?? No, I still do not see the contradiction you see. 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. I guess I should be rephrasing that example. I did not mean "modified" QT code but independent code linking to QT. This new code's copyright is with the person creating this "work" - and it is upto this person to not release the source-code if he does not wish to. Of course, I may be wrong here. But I did not see anything in the GPL in this regard, forcing one to release code which "can be reasonably considered independent". Of course, I'm treading on some shaky ground here - and this is where the need for LGPL arose too. Because it's not impossible (although, can be a PITA) to work around GPL's viral restrictions by really separating code and making them communicate over some sort of IPC to escape v2's clauses. Clearly, for example, I do not see how Opera can be designed in such a way to work-around GPL. But I can see some data-munching s/w - fairly independent - which only needs QT for displaying. Such s/w can escape having to release their "core" source under GPL - and only give away code which enables bridging with QT. > <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. I don't think such would be the case. You can still sell your code under GPL, provide QT source-code alongwith. Opera needed to buy because they would not want to release their browser code under GPL. Trolltech can not sue you for selling packaged/built versions if the source-code is included alongwith. The only problem is that you will be able to sell only one copy because the first buyer has the right to re-distribute the source-code for free! Best wishes, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
