Re: Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> What is QT???  How can a tool license require that your source code be
> GPL?

QT is a library, not a tool.  If you *link* with it, the result is a
derived work, and that derived work must be licensed in a way that's
compatible with all of its component parts, including QT.  This is no
different than any other third-party library - you must honor their
terms, or not use them.

rickman wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:42 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> There are similar restrictions FPGA tools.  Worse they seem to be able
>>> to restrict use of the compiled design that is produced from their
>>> tools.  I have read about this being upheld by the courts when
>>> customers moved from FPGA to ASIC by providing a bitstream from the
>>> tools to an ASIC vendor.  At least one such company was put out of
>>> business by this decision.
>> A lot of different tools have similar restrictions.  For example, many
>> tools have a limited free version with the restriction that you can't
>> use it for commercial work.
>>
>> QT have a particularly odd one for their development tools.  You can get
>> free tools (utilities and libraries) under the GPL, which obviously
>> restricts you to developing GPL (or GPL-compatible) code - fair enough.
>>   You can also get paid-for tools and libraries, which you can use and
>> link to code under any license you want - again, fair enough.  But if
>> you start a project using the GPL'ed tools, then buy the paid-for tools,
>> you are not allowed to import your code and project into the paid-for
>> tools.  If you want to develop a closed-source project with QT, you must
>> buy and use the paid-for tools from day one.  I'd be very surprised to
>> see that one stand up to legal testing (but then, IANAL, and I'm
>> continually surprised for what passes for "justice" in some courts).
> 
> What is QT???  How can a tool license require that your source code be
> GPL?  The fact that you run your code through a compiler can't put
> restrictions on the source.  Why not just say that if you use these
> tools we own your first born male child?  I thought GPL only required
> that if you distribute the compiled code you had to distribute the
> source.  If you don't distribute the compiled code, then there are no
> restrictions.  If you have not released any of the code previously,
> how would anyone know that the code had been compiled using a GPL
> tool?  This not only sounds ridiculous, but it sounds unenforceable.
> 

Sorry, I took it for granted that people would be familiar with QT - 
especially people interested in open source development.  But in 
hindsight that assumption was not reasonable (perhaps I know more about 
it since it's from a Norwegian company).

QT is a C++ class library for cross-platform development, especially for 
gui development.  The developers also supply a range of tools that go 
with the library.  The library has for many years been available in a 
GPL version for Linux (this is the foundation for KDE), and 
closed-licence paid-for version for Windows and Linux (and possibly 
other systems - I don't know the details).  There are also several 
embedded versions aimed at fancy telephones, etc.

> 
>> They don't release everything under the GPL - their own libraries,
>> various debugger proxies, etc., have different licenses.  For the
>> compiler itself (and binutils), there is of course nothing to stop
>> people redistributing the source and binaries, since it is GPL'ed.  In
>> practice, however, I don't think many would be interested - after all,
>> you are only talking about a few months difference and people normally
>> prefer to use "official" packages.
> 
> When you say, "their own libraries", what libraries would that be?
> Aren't libraries available for GCC?
> 
> Rick

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:44:24 +0200, David Brown wrote:

> Sorry, I took it for granted that people would be familiar with QT - 
> especially people interested in open source development.  But in 
> hindsight that assumption was not reasonable (perhaps I know more about 
> it since it's from a Norwegian company).
> 
> QT is a C++ class library for cross-platform development, especially for 
> gui development.  The developers also supply a range of tools that go 
> with the library.  The library has for many years been available in a 
> GPL version for Linux (this is the foundation for KDE), and 
> closed-licence paid-for version for Windows and Linux (and possibly 
> other systems - I don't know the details).  There are also several 
> embedded versions aimed at fancy telephones, etc.

That's a bit out of date. All versions of the base Qt libraries (but not
Qt Extended) are currently available under the LGPL, as well as the GPL
and commercial versions.

The commercial version still has the restriction that you cannot use it
with code "developed with" the GPL or LGPL versions.

Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:44:24 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, I took it for granted that people would be familiar with QT - 
>> especially people interested in open source development.  But in 
>> hindsight that assumption was not reasonable (perhaps I know more about 
>> it since it's from a Norwegian company).
>>
>> QT is a C++ class library for cross-platform development, especially for 
>> gui development.  The developers also supply a range of tools that go 
>> with the library.  The library has for many years been available in a 
>> GPL version for Linux (this is the foundation for KDE), and 
>> closed-licence paid-for version for Windows and Linux (and possibly 
>> other systems - I don't know the details).  There are also several 
>> embedded versions aimed at fancy telephones, etc.
> 
> That's a bit out of date. All versions of the base Qt libraries (but not
> Qt Extended) are currently available under the LGPL, as well as the GPL
> and commercial versions.
> 

I didn't know that they were also releasing under the LGPL.  I knew they 
were going to include GPL licensing for their Windows version from 4.5 
onwards, but having the LGPL as well is excellent news.  This, along 
with KDE libraries (which have always been LGPL) for Windows, makes QT a 
very flexible choice for cross-platform development.

> The commercial version still has the restriction that you cannot use it
> with code "developed with" the GPL or LGPL versions.
> 

This, of course, was my point - and it's definitely a bit odd and of 
dubious legal status.  I can understand Trolltech's reasons for putting 
it in, but hopefully Nokia will remove the clause at some point.

On Apr 17, 5:54=A0pm, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:44:24 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> > Sorry, I took it for granted that people would be familiar with QT -
> > especially people interested in open source development. =A0But in
> > hindsight that assumption was not reasonable (perhaps I know more about
> > it since it's from a Norwegian company).
>
> > QT is a C++ class library for cross-platform development, especially fo=
r
> > gui development. =A0The developers also supply a range of tools that go
> > with the library. =A0The library has for many years been available in a
> > GPL version for Linux (this is the foundation for KDE), and
> > closed-licence paid-for version for Windows and Linux (and possibly
> > other systems - I don't know the details). =A0There are also several
> > embedded versions aimed at fancy telephones, etc.
>
> That's a bit out of date. All versions of the base Qt libraries (but not
> Qt Extended) are currently available under the LGPL, as well as the GPL
> and commercial versions.
>
> The commercial version still has the restriction that you cannot use it
> with code "developed with" the GPL or LGPL versions.

Ok, so how is that enforced?  If you release a program linked with QT,
then you have released the sources as well and you can't unring the
bell.  But if you did not release the program, how are you prevented
from using the commercial version with your code that was developed
under an xGPL version?

Rick

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:06:24 -0700, rickman wrote:

>> The commercial version still has the restriction that you cannot use it
>> with code "developed with" the GPL or LGPL versions.
> 
> Ok, so how is that enforced?  If you release a program linked with QT,
> then you have released the sources as well and you can't unring the
> bell.  But if you did not release the program, how are you prevented
> from using the commercial version with your code that was developed
> under an xGPL version?

If the project is developed in secret, it would be hard to get caught
unless you do something silly like releasing a package with 100k lines of
GUI code a week after obtaining the licence.

But most commercial software could easily use the LGPL version. Probably
the biggest exception would be console games, where the console vendors
normally require you to lock everything down.