Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/2 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL. It helped clear up confusions of many. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Saturday 03 Jan 2009 11:20:55 am Praveen A wrote: 2009/1/2 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: God. A mile long thread for nothing. Qt is GPL then. And One can use it in gpl commercial software. And trolltech continues to plug a completely wrong interpretation of both the terms commercial and GPL. It helped clear up confusions of many. and no invective, no personal remarks! -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 9:14:49 am Praveen A wrote: 2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL. ... if you plan not to use GPL for your code. Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying the best of both worlds - a great con. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: if at all I remember to license my code, I use the BSD license - not using GPL != not writing free software. That is the way GPL works. You don't have to use GPLed code if you don't want your code to be GPL. Take some libraries that are not GPL, say GTK instead of QT. The purpose of GPL is protecting everyone's freedom and make sure middlemen does not strip those. So this (not able to use other licenses) is a cost one has to pay for ensuring freedom. If you believe it is too costly, then you could pick code written in other licenses. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: according to this, the whole idea of licensing libraries under GPL instead of LGPL is to *prevent* those libraries from being used for proprietary software and *force* the programmers to write free software. Is this what is happening here? These people are enjoying the best of both worlds - a great con. It gives an advantage to Free Software developers over proprietary developers. No one is forcing anyone. If you don't like GPL, don't take it. Even if by mistake you take GPL code in your program and some one finds it out later, you are not forced to release your code. You are given a choice 1) release your code under GPL 2) Stop using the GPL code and find something else Even in the worst scenario, you are not forced to release you code, though that might be the best thing to do. You might want to check out this presentation about comparing FOSS to ocean and proprietary to earth http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail659.html If the code only comes in and does not go out it becomes a swamp. As discussed earlier, forcing one to use GPL is a cost one has to pay for ensuring everyone's freedom. If you can't afford it, you can look for other code. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/1 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale does not understand the term commercial?. I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary. Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it is not correct or we campaign not to use it, because that is so common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux? Or why people still use the word pirate? Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence. You don't have to presume anything. The code has GPL license and plus they have eased the requirement of derivative works to be under GPL, to a list of foss licenses. - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 10:40:28 am Praveen A wrote: commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary. Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it is not correct or we campaign not to use it, because that is so common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux? because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'. If it were that simple RMS would not have to maintain this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 90s, free commercial software started to appear. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Friday 02 Jan 2009 11:24:00 am Praveen A wrote: 2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: because there is a dispute about the meaning of the terms. There is no dispute about the meaning of the terms 'commercial' and 'proprietary'. If it were that simple RMS would not have to maintain this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial RMS has a habit of making simple things complicated ;-) I am quite sure that nokia knows the difference between commercial and proprietary and insist on the commercial license for commercial free software. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/1 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: RMS has a habit of making simple things complicated ;-) I am quite sure that nokia knows the difference between commercial and proprietary and insist on the commercial license for commercial free software. FSF and Debian thinks qt is Free Software. Red Hat and Novell redistribute it commercially as well. From what I see it is Free Software but if you think otherwise you can keep away from it. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html (Many articles on gnu.org mentions it and this is what I got in a quick search). http://packages.debian.org/source/lenny/qt4-x11 -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2009/1/1 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: The rule for interpretation is extremely simple 1) does the term commercial appear in the licence 2) does the licence refer to notice.txt If any one of the two do, the licence is not GPL. If neither do, it is GPL I give up. I tried my best to explain what I know. If you plan to use it, contact Nokia legal. I am belabouring this because i dont want to download the whole source tarball to get at the licence. Can someone post the licence or a url for this specific licence. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/q/qt4-x11/qt4-x11_4.4.3-1/copyright -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:56:17 pm Praveen A wrote: 2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria. So are you telling that Virtual Box, QT, Open Office, MySQL fails this minimum criteria? they dont fail this minimum criteria But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect. OK. No problems with that. But just look at the example of Open Office. Sun distributes proprietary Star Office and ownership of any contribution to Open Office must be shared with Sun. Now some people did not want to do that and there is http://go-oo.org/ Where do you stand with respect to Open Office? I feel it sucks big time - it is an attempt to outdo M$ office, run by a big corporation where probably (I say probably) design decisions are not being taken by the core developers. Since ownership of all contributions have to be shared with Sun, this automatically cuts down the number of potential contributors and probably fully cuts out casual contributors. In my opinion, it *is* foss - but just barely and a good example of how not to do FOSS. This is in addition to my objection to office suites in general which in my opinion is equivalent to employing elephants to transport toothpicks. License is th enabler for the development methodology. If you don't like the model fork. That is what happened with Open Office, Sourceforge (gforge) ... And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance. Are you telling Open Office, QT, MySQL are of lower quality because they are under dual license? I do not know about QT, but both Open Office and MySQL are of lower quality and I feel that it is largely due to the dual license policy which to a large extent shuts out community involvement in the development process and in decision making. Just compare postgres and mysql and you will see the difference. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only?? They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here? The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 (GPL). apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...' That is the property of a copyleft license. There is nothing new Nokia has done here. So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under? It is because GPL requires all derivative works to use the same license. Nothing new Nokia invented. -Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:53:34 pm jtd wrote: And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lic ense this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only?? Sorry, no joke here. Only if you sell your modifications/enhancements are you required to release the source code. Keep it to yourself and Qt wouldn't give a damn. The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 (GPL). apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...' huh? The operative word in your statement is apparently - and I can assure you that your understanding is wrong, unless you have your own English grammar and semantics. So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under? Sure, you can't, if you *choose* the GPL path! With such possible mixing, we'd have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix. To answer your question, based on your above cut-and-paste-from-trolltech: QT is available under multiple licenses (GPL v2, v3, and its proprietary license.) Best wishes, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Ravindra Jaju ravindra.j...@gmail.com: have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix. well, it is a one way path. you can add BSD code to GPLed code. ZFS and dtrace are under CDDL, which is also a Free Software license, but incompatible with GPL. -Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote: this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only?? They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here? as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL? Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release the software under GPL??? The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 (GPL). apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...' That is the property of a copyleft license. There is nothing new Nokia has done here. Nokia? how did nokia come into the picture? So I cannot use that to develop software I release under, say, BSD license!. So what license is QT released under? It is because GPL requires all derivative works to use the same license. Nothing new Nokia invented. so any application developed using QT is a derivative work? And again, where does Nokia come in? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:49:09 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: apparently this means that QT itself is not released under the GPL - the open source edition is released to 'develop open source software governed by the GPL ...' huh? The operative word in your statement is apparently - and I can assure you that your understanding is wrong, unless you have your own English grammar and semantics. shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 1:46:07 pm Praveen A wrote: 2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to contribute such modifications to the community. But how can they compel me to release software written using QT? and further compel me to release it under the GPL only?? They don't compel you to use QT. They want _you_ to give the same respect you got from them to your users. If you don't like GPL don't use it. It is same for every GPLed software including the linux kernel. So how QT is different here? anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-) So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible public by misusing the term GPL. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed. Sorry if it sounded personal, but it was my natural reaction to your statements which do not seem to represent what QT claims in its licensing terms/conditions, and without the benefit of instant feedback (like, when face-2-face), I had to put in my (personal sounding) disclaimers My, and I presume others', understanding about the licensing terms of the Free version of QT is very different from yours - QT is available under GPL v2, v3, and also some exceptions which specify how you can use QT for your own code which you wish to release under other open licenses like BSD, Apache, CDDL, EPL, blah blah. Which makes QT perfectly complying with the FOSS principles as far as I can see. I can, off-list, send across the licenses files which are part of the source-code (from the svn checked-out codebase) - if you wish to have a look. What freedom does it suppress, in your opinion? Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:16:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: Which makes QT perfectly complying with the FOSS principles as far as I can see. I can, off-list, send across the licenses files which are part of the source-code (from the svn checked-out codebase) - if you wish to have a look. please do What freedom does it suppress, in your opinion? will revert after seeing the licenses -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 3:28:46 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: Sorry, this is pure FUD! QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it NotQT - and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. It won't make you a misuser! well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code. I remember people doing this with MySQL long ago - they would develop with mysql, but required the customer to download mysql independently. I presume the same would be the case with software developed with QT - just compile at the customers end and problem is solved. And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet! not enough - there are 4 criteria. I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation is dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled. I too am wondering why I am wasting New Years eve discussing the use of something that I would never use ;-) -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
And more .. clearly contradicting: http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/192?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/developer/faqs/licensing http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/191?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/developer/faqs/licensing Regards, farazs -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself is released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed. Well, when you say a program is released under GPL, it means you have all the freedoms GPL gives. What QT exception says is over and above the freedoms we are granting you some more like your program need not be GPL, but it could be any other FOSS license. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: anyway, the point is moot - under the exception, I may release software developed using QT under BSD license also. Which further means that the QT license does not imply that software developed using QT is derivative of QT as laid down in the GPL. The exception is here: No. What it means is, because software developed is a derivative work (if it were not, we would not have needed this exception) we are easing the derivative work requirement. GPL says derivative works should be GPL and we give you some more choices, it could be any of the listed Free Software license. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-) So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a gullible public by misusing the term GPL. Licensing is a legal topic and not everyone understands the nuances. Between all this confusion comes only to those who write code with QT and not for just using it. Its not rubbish, you can't release your code in any license other than those listed. So it is still copyleft like GPL, but much looser (giving you a lot more options for your license, but still requoring it to be foss). 1. You write code under GPL - no confusion, you can link to QT 2. You write your code under any of the listed FOSS licenses - again no confusion you can link to QT 2. You want to keep your code proprietary - no confusion you pay QT for a proprietary license. The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary. - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: Agree - they have a license section which forms part of the code they distribute. This has the GPL quoted verbatim, giving all the rights GPL gives with only one modification relating to openssl - THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. There is also a file named OPENSOURCE-NOTICE.TXT. Here they have tacked on some conditions - but these conditions do not form part of the license - if they did, then it is doubtful whether either FSF or OSF would recognise their license. So the con game is also there in the code itself. Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start developing proprietary software using the Open Source edition. If you, your company or your organization derive commercial benefit from Trolltech's products _and do not wish to release your complete source code___, you are required to purchase the appropriate number of commercial licenses. Alternatively, if you are willing to follow the terms of the GPL (General Public License), Trolltech software is available to you under Open Source licenses which allows you _to develop, modify and distribute__ your software freely. The main obligation for software development under the GPL is that anyone using your Qt-based software must have access to the complete source code, and must be able to modify and redistribute that software to anyone free of charge. I think that was pretty clear. Even though the word commercial is misleading, you can't miss the explanation - what they mean by commercial. It clearly states what you can do with the GPL version. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote: The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary. so commercial == proprietary? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:00:14 am Praveen A wrote: 2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: as far as I know, QT is some sort of toolkit which is used to build applications (I may be wrong). The question is: when I build an application using QT, am I modifying QT? Am I creating a derivative work of QT? If so, I have to release the code under GPL. If not why should I release it under GPL? Next some one will say that all code created using GNU C compiler has to be released under GPL. Or if I use the linux develop software I have to release Would your application work without QT? You need QT+your code to make your application work. You don't need GNU C compiler for your built code to work, you will need GNU C library (glibc). But glibc is under LGPL. If glibc were under GPL, what you say will be correct. I think the confusion is because we are not used to many GPLed libraries and assume libraries can't be GPL. anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote: The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean proprietary. so commercial == proprietary? No. It is a very common misunderstanding especially for businesses (I keep hearing the term commercial from many of my colleagues when they actually mean is proprietary) . Nokia/Trolltech have explained clearly what rights and obligations you have in the explanations. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL. ... if you plan not to use GPL for your code. Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 9:14:49 am Praveen A wrote: anyway, one good thing is that I have now learned the difference between GPL and LGPL (I was under the impression that LGPL meant Lesser GPL - something that is not so strict as GPL). I was vaguely contemplating switching from wxPython to pyQT - now I realise how dangerous that is. Lesson: before using a library, make sure it is not under GPL. ... if you plan not to use GPL for your code. if at all I remember to license my code, I use the BSD license - not using GPL != not writing free software. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote: open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox is virtualbox foss? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote: open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox is virtualbox foss? Yes. It is under GPL. -- Thank you Balachandran Sivakumar Arise Awake and stop not till the goal is reached. Mail: benignb...@gmail.com Blog: http://benignbala.wordpress.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:09:44 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 12:23:13 pm Erach wrote: open virtualbox is there and for binaries read this chief feature for small organizations where people themselves install virtualbox is virtualbox foss? Yes. It is under GPL. then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
Hi, On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:09:44 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote: Yes. It is under GPL. then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'? I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product. The details are here. http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions -- Thank you Balachandran Sivakumar Arise Awake and stop not till the goal is reached. Mail: benignb...@gmail.com Blog: http://benignbala.wordpress.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 5:40:49 pm Balachandran Sivakumar wrote: then what is all the fuss about 'you cant do automated installs'? I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product. then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product. then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here It is. Please don't spread FUD. Thanks. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 6:01:12 pm Kartik Mistry wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: I think I missed it the first time. Virtual Box seems to have dual licenses. One that is GPL and another proprietary license for the enterprise level product. then it is not FOSS and we need not worry about it here It is. Please don't spread FUD. proprietary == foss? in which language? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: Please don't spread FUD. proprietary == foss? in which language? Who claimed that proprietary == foss? Virtualbox is available under *two* kinds of licenses - one of which is GPL. So, where's the problem? Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, jtd j...@mtnl.net.in wrote: The other licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way. 1] The other license does not matter to us 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason! -- jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:01:51 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: Please don't spread FUD. proprietary == foss? in which language? Who claimed that proprietary == foss? Virtualbox is available under *two* kinds of licenses - one of which is GPL. So, where's the problem? the problem is in the hypocrisy of mixing foss with proprietary -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain meet. A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven. Let's say there are two companies F and P. F makes Free software and releases it to the world with code. F is happy, and so are users. Then, P comes along and tells F that it has some nice add-on tools for the Free software and wants F to relicense it to P under a different license and gives F some money. F is happy since he earns and gets a chance to support this endeavour further. P has a client-base which is happy to pay for the additional features - sans source for the *add-on* tools. Why can't we be friendly with F? F *owns* the software, and it's entirely F's prerogative to sell it under another license too. And if you are so unhappy, take the Open version and fork. But I don't see that having any meaning, as the source-code is already GPL'ed. Unless it's the GPL which is a source of concern to you. What am I missing in your arguments? Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Ravindra Jaju ravindra.j...@gmail.comwrote: What am I missing in your arguments? Oh, and did I mention: VirtualBox is *awesome*! I run OpenSolaris and Windows XP on it - without leaving my GNU/Linux desktop. And not a single hair-pulling moment :) -- jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven. Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..) -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: Please don't spread FUD. proprietary == foss? in which language? Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in Debian. And for your info, Qt is also under dual license. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Kartik Mistry kartik.mis...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: Please don't spread FUD. proprietary == foss? in which language? Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in Debian. And for your info, Qt is also under dual license. I avoided mentioning Qt (although I had that in mind) because there's a subtle difference - that of the source-code being not available for the commercial version in one case (ie, VB). Kenneth's primary contention seems to be this aspect (?). -- jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
My reply in-line. -- --Dinesh Shah :-) +91-98213-11906 Shah Micro System http://dineshah.wordpress.com Sent from iPhone! On Dec 30, 2008, at 19:31, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:20:44 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: The other licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not modify the product in any way. 1] The other license does not matter to us 2] The GPL'ed version is just that - FOSS Hence, there's no problem discussing the GPL'ed VirtualBox on the list here. The proprietary version has some additional tools which Sun wishes to sell for a fee. I don't see any reason to dismiss VirtualBox just for that reason! proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain meet. A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list. Do not impose any arbrotery rules on the list. The devil can quote scripture and proprietary creeps can 'release' a subset of their offerings under GPL. But neither can make it into the kingdom of heaven. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Dinesh Shah dines...@gmail.com wrote: We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list. .. And lots of OTs from 'Masters Of The OTs' too. ;) -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 11:42:12 pm Dinesh Shah wrote: A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and does not deserve discussion on this list. We discuss everything related to Linux and technology, including closed source software on this list. we do? Do not impose any arbrotery rules on the list. I am not imposing any rules - I am not an admin anyway. As a member of the list I have the right to speak out on what is on topic and what is not. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 8:20:42 pm Ravindra Jaju wrote: What am I missing in your arguments? elaborated in another part of this thread. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd j...@mtnl.net.in wrote: Is Qt bad at all? (Dual license..) There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest. You can use Qt for commercial purpose - when you have license for it. The page clearly says about it. That doesn't make company dishonest. In fact, IMHO, they are honest to tell about Licenses in public clearly. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39 AM, jtd j...@mtnl.net.in wrote: You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially. continuing ... *as long as* you provide the source code to your 'commercial' software to the end user. If you wish to keep your code (built on Qt) private, only then do you need to obtain their commercial license - because Qt is not LGPL which you can link to for free. Qt doesn't stop you from selling your GPL code based on Qt - does it? -- jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/30 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially. http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing The confusion stems from the common misunderstanding that commercial == proprietary It clearly states The Open Source Editions of Qt and Qt Jambi are freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL). Which does not mean, you cannot use it for commercial purposes. - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect is it is ok to have individual concepts about what is foss and how it differs. But if you have a different idea from what is commonly referred to as foss (Free Software definition from FSF, Debian Free Software Guidelines, Open Source definition - almost all foss passes the three definitions, except for some corner cases like reciprocal license which passes Open Source Definition but fails FSF's definition) it would be better to call it by a separate name to avoid confusion. You can have KG's foss guidelines and state clearly what constitutes foss according to you. the developmental model. If you take Mysql, any contributor to the code has to assign copyright to Mysql. No doubt they pay for it, and pay well. But that cuts down the number of contributors and the quality of contribution. low quality foss is still foss. The result is a skewed development model. Although most FOSS projects have just a handful of major contributors, It is the huge number of casual every foss project does not have to follow the same model. As long as it complies with the common definitions of foss - it is foss. contributors that really make a FOSS project good. I am not talking about the idealogical aspect here - I am just talking about the fact that the FOSS developmental model is the major factor in making FOSS code good and secure - license is secondary. A project might have a bad development model, but it alone does not make it non-foss. And for your info, Qt is also under dual license. I know - which is why I am ambivalent about QT. As long as we have the choice to take the Free Version, why bother if some one does not want freedom? - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39 AM, jtd j...@mtnl.net.in wrote: You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any additional licence from anyone for using a gpl package commercially. Ok. I missed my point. 1. Use Qt with GPL for any purpose, either FOSS or Commercial - Give the source if you are putting it in public (ie mandatory when you are using any GPL products/sw etc). 2. Use Qt for closed source stuffs - purchase Qt License(s). Dear List, Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd j...@mtnl.net.in wrote: There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page, which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not corrected even a year later. So the company insists on being dishonest. Interesting. Can you please spell out a few details on this one? I'm interested in knowing. Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 11:59:09 am Praveen A wrote: 2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org: well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect is it is ok to have individual concepts about what is foss and how it differs. But if you have a different idea from what is commonly referred to as foss (Free Software definition from FSF, Debian Free Software Guidelines, Open Source definition - almost all foss passes the three definitions, except for some corner cases like reciprocal license which passes Open Source Definition but fails FSF's definition) it would be better to call it by a separate name to avoid confusion. none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria. But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect. And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
2008/12/30 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: They are still at it. The Qt Commercial License is the correct license to use for the development of proprietary and/or commercial software with Qt or Qt Jambi. That is partly rubbish. Agreed. That is what I said about misunderstanding of the word commercial. They should have used proprietary instead of commercial. And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-license has more rubbish. Like? - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] The virtualbox license --- clarification from the FAQ --
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Praveen A prav...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/30 jtd j...@mtnl.net.in: And http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-license has more rubbish. Like? +1 interested in knowing. -- jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
