From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 30 00:43:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6E216A41F for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:42:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B80943D5D for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:42:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8095D53; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36149-09; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-161-54-113.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.54.113]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96E85CF0; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42C34009.2080101@mac.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:49 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny Pansters References: <200506291330.56499.danny@ricin.com> <42C2B47D.7050302@mac.com> <200506300127.00983.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <200506300127.00983.danny@ricin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:43:00 -0000 Danny Pansters wrote: > Hey Chuck, thanks for answering. No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-) Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my last email, and got a positive response that they would look into this. My impression is that their download page reflects a somewhat clumsy explanation of what the GPL requires for derivative works, rather than an attempt by TrollTech to force other people to use the GPL. -- -Chuck From: info@trolltech.com Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: <42C2BB0A.5050705@mac.com> To: Chuck Swiger Cc: info@trolltech.com Message-id: <20050629185029.63912559@esparsett.troll.no> [ ... ] > If one were to write your own program, and use it with QT in a fashion > which results in a derivative work, then one may not redistribute the > program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Exactly. Deriving from Qt and QSA is all you do when you use it. > However, nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be > relicensed under the GPL, it simply requires that code to be under a > GPL-miscable license. For instance, the "new" BSDL (ie, without the > advertizing clause) is fine, as is the MIT/X11 license and others. We don't require this either: >>> Make the complete source code of your program available to all end >>> users Allow all users to re-use, modify and re-distribute the code >>> Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use and >>> re-distribution Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed >>> when it runs When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license (which is what we mean when we says "GPL licensed"). [ ... ] ---------- and --------- Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: <1B990F5E-DC99-438B-B640-21B11A13221E@mac.com> To: Charles Swiger Cc: info@trolltech.com Message-id: <20050629195119.DCBF32A3@esparsett.troll.no> > The specific problem with OSD-compliance is this phrase: > > "Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use" Hello Chuck, thanks for clarifying, now I know what you are commenting on. > People can and do sell GPL'ed software all of the time. People can and > do sell services or charge usage fees for systems which use GPL'ed > software. > > What you cannot do with GPL'ed software is prevent someone you've sold > the software to from giving it away for free, if they so choose. And > once you've redistributed the software (in either source or binary > form), you must also make the complete source code available for free. I think you have a point, I'll pass this on to our legal department for review. >> When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since >> the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible >> license (which is what we mean when we says "GPL licensed"). > > The GPL is "reciprocal" or "copyleft", yes. I would suggest there is a > significant difference between "you must use a GPL-compatible license > if you redistribute a binary containing Qt" and "you must license your > code under the GPL". I think the GPL is quite fuzzy when it comes to "inhouse development". But you are right, development itself does not constitute an act relevant for the GPL. I was oversimpifying :) Regards, Volker -- Volker Hilsheimer, Support Manager Trolltech AS, Waldemar Thranes gate 98, NO-0175 Oslo, Norway