Re: Trolltech QT license question



"stork" <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Stork replied to:

On my system dynamic linking does in no way result in an "indistinguishable
whole" containing the application and the library

My point is that the Free Software Foundation has taken the stance that
dynamic linking is incorporation, and I would assume that Trolltech
would as well. Both of them, and many other commercial open source
vendors, believe that if you are using, consuming, incorporating, ie:

Belief is dangerous. Many people seem to believe that drawing a
picture of a guy with a beard is a deadly sin. Does that make it
true? Not in my part of the world.

benefiting from their product, for a closed source commercial purpose,
then you need to pursue a licensing option outside of the GPL because
you are violating it. Even Microsoft is beginning to make this
argument with their tool suite. I believe they now have clauses that
explicitly prohibit you from making GPL software with their
redistributables.

The argument you are making is that you don't really have to follow a
license.

You have to follow the letter of the license, not what the licensor
says he believes it means. If the licensor made a mistake and granted
you rights he didn't intend, his problem.

There's no court in the USA, especially given the current
administration's appointees, that is going to side with a consumer
playing licensing games with a vendor's product. That is, if
Trolltech sues you for copyright infringement, you are going to go
to court system stuffed with judges from 12 years of Reagan Bush I,
and now 5 years of Bush II. Good luck.

That's the reason I suggested to the OP that he ask Trolltech about
it.

As a practical matter, what is so hard about honoring the spirit of
what Trolltech is trying to do? It's really simple. If you are going
to write free software, then Qt is free. If you aren't, then you have
to pay them. If you are benefiting from Qt in a commercial product,
then you should pay Trolltech, and, if you are not willing to pay them,
then, use another product.

Trolltech, and everyone else, should make their licenses say exactly
what they intend, not use something that sounds about right, and later
say "well, but we really meant..." when someone takes advantage of the
mistake.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Trolltech QT license question
    ... dynamic linking is incorporation, and I would assume that Trolltech ... to write free software, then Qt is free. ... then you should pay Trolltech, and, if you are not willing to pay them, ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: Building a Python app with Mozilla
    ... Free as long as you develop free software. ... non-gpl software with Qt requires a commercial licence from Trolltech. ... it's licensing. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
    ... licensing issues / suites) it is supposed to be using open source as ... are die-hard, purist Free Software believers, like RMS (i.e. "free up ... attractivity to SMEs. ... Students and hobbyists, ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • The Future Of Free Software
    ... The lawyer for the Free Software Foundation said during a keynote at the ... The litigator also successfully helped guide the U.S. Patent Trademark ... The patents came under scrutiny after critics claimed that the licensing ... To gauge how productive SourceForge and the open source community can be, ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Picking a license
    ... quite a lot of money out of effectively making Linux the new ... where software licensing ... I don't agree with FSF's defintion of free software and refuse to ... company lawyers" feel more comfortable with permissive licences, ...
    (comp.lang.python)