Printable View
If a GPL/LGPL version of Qt were ever discontinued, it would be released under an FSF-approved license of the KDE Free Qt Foundation's choosing, and all of them are KDE people.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
So any effort to close Qt would result in a GPL version, PLUS a BSD version. The BSD version would kill closed-source Qt development in its tracks. It's a really good agreement, actually.
So, your version of freedom is your way or no way ?! Why shouldn't anybody have freedom to release code under any license they please ? And who is >forcing< you to use their code ?Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
In my observations, the Stockholm syndrome applies very strongly to gnome/gtk groupies. Usually they are the one who keep whining about Qt forever, with utter disregard to facts and common sense. I do not feel abused running Qt based s/w. And I am even stronger in my opinions than any damn asshole. And I have the reasoning to back them.
I do believe s/w should be free but I do not begrudge people who make money from it, as long as people are not >forced< to use and pay for it.
funkstar has a point, though it may get a bit hard to see with the attitude.
The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges. It's not limited to new closed-source only modules, but they way I believe it is it also allows them to do something like this:
1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.
They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?
Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.Quote:
Originally Posted by curaga
The worst that can happen is that Digia releases some modules they created and that have always been closed-source as closed source. However, this can never be a large portion of Qt because, again, anything that integrates too tightly with the core of Qt has to have an open-source license.
Digia has no special rights in this regard, anyone anywhere can create closed-source modules for Qt and sell them at whatever price they want. Digia doesn't have any special privileges in this way. Technically, anyone who wanted to could give their closed-source modules away to whoever buys a closed-source license to Qt, but of course only Digia has a motive to do this.
No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removedQuote:
Originally Posted by curaga
The agreement doesn't touch that. For example, they could create a bugfix for core Qt and only ship it in the commercial version, fully legally. This is one way how it could be open-cored. This is my understanding by reading the jpeg agreement; if I'm wrong, please say which part says they cannot do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
Of course they cannot remove the license of the patch, as it exists in its patch form. But they can, under the CLA, put the same code under a license of their choice, while also not including it in the official Qt open source edition.Quote:
No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
Please note the difference: the new feature is available in its patch form, under its original license. But it may never be integrated in the official open source edition, while at the same time shipping in the commercial edition.