On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:15:42 -0500, Kevin Walzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phil Thompson wrote: > >> >> The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial* >> license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage >> commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their >> development phase. >> >> > > Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct: > > A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial > software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the > product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the > GPL.. > > This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having > all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a > modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed > without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego > paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is > PyQt) and use the open-source version.
If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
