On Jan 24, 3:00 pm, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thus, it is well possible to write internal GPL software, using the Qt Open > Source library, and to release/distribute/use it *ONLY* internally.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > Also, it > should be made clear that a company can of course relicense its own > proprietary libraries as GPL for internal usage only, so that they can be > linked to other GPL libraries "legally". That seems to be a reasonable approach, though it seems to me that the GPL grants even "internal" users certain rights. > [[ Another page of similar babble is the one where they try to convince you > that you cannot use the Qt Open Source edition to develop a software, and then > buy the commercial edition only the day before you want to release it as non > open-source. I can't even understand how they can even try to support such a > nonsense position. You're free to develop your software for years as GPL > without distributing it, and then relicense your own code whenever you want. > They're obviously just trying to scare people. ]] That's nothing to do with any restrictions in the GPL; it's more to do with purchasing a commercial license. Obviously, if you're operating a dual licensing scheme, it's not in your interest to encourage people to pretend to write open source software up until the day it is released as a closed source product. That sort of behaviour is not exactly inviting mutual trust between vendor and customer, is it? David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list