On Wednesday 31 December 2008 17:37, Faraz Shahbazker wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ravindra Jaju <ravindra.j...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < > > > > faraz.shahbaz...@gmail.com> 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.
p.s. tiny quibble: you are entitled to charge a small fee towards recovering costs for distributing the code. AND you must make an offer for the code too, if you are not distributing the code. That is what Cisco is getting shafted for in some court. > > <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. Or i just start selling gpld source and binary package to those willing to purchase and not to anybody else. > 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. Further, while an extension to the gpl would be perfectly valid since trolltech owns the copyright, by no stretch could it be called gpl. One could get into a legal spat with them over weasel words and wether the said notice.txt (mentioned in other parts of this thread) forms part of the licence. IMO they have licenced QT as GPL v2 but are indulging in plenty of misinformation in every place where the licence is supposed to be clarified. Including the notice.txt in the licence is imo a very slippery legal floor. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
