"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 1/24/07, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > > > That page is legal babble, trying to trick you into buying (or making your > > boss buy) a commercial license. The Qt Open Source edition *IS* GPL and thus > > it falls under all the normal GPL clauses and uses, irrespective of what > > Trolltech may or may not think. > > > > For instance, see this FAQ: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > > > which makes pretty clear that a "company"/"organization" is basically the > > same > > of an "individual". "Releasing a software within a company for internal > > usage" > > is by no means the same of "releasing it to the public". Basically, for what > > the GPL is concerned, it is *not* a "release" or a "distribution" at all. > > > > I should point out that the FSFs position in this regard is not > supported by copyright law and that the fact that Trolltech takes a > different position is something that you should consider strongly. If > the FSFs position were true, there would be no need for per-seat > licensing of commercial software (because internal distribution > wouldn't be). US copyright law does not draw a distinction between > "internal distribution" and any other kind, and I'm not aware of any > case law that does so either. This distinction is also not codified in > the GPL itself anywhere, so it's not a necessary condition of the > license - it is an interpretation by the FSF and that is all. [snip]
It is all interpretation -- even after some cases have wandered through the courts. Mostly the trolltech statements indicate their intent to sue. That right there tells me I want to go elsewhere. -- Harry George PLM Engineering Architecture -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list