Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt

Funkmaster F writes "At the KDE Developer Conference today, Trolltech CEO Havaard Nord announced that its Qt application development toolkit will be released under GPL 3. 'Here at the KDE release event, Nord's announcement was met with applause. Like Trolltech's initial decision to move from its own QPL license to the GPL, this announcement and the company's more recent decision to adopt the GPL for all platforms rather than just Linux, demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to openness.'"

Gnome

[calebt3 (1098475)]

So the complaint that KDE is not as "open" as Gnome is no longer valid?

Re:

[AJWM (19027)]

I don't think that complaint has been valid in the last ten years, or whenever it was that Trolltech released the Qt library under GPL 2.

Arguably Gnome is the less open desktop, since GTK is licensed under the lesser GPL.

Re:Gnome

[philipp-de (1154309)]

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too. The GPL requires this.

Re:Gnome

[AJWM (19027)]

It gives the developer using the library more freedom, not everyone else. Hence the FSF's name change of the LGPL from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL".

Of course it's the same argument that BSD license proponents put forth. It boils down to who you're talking about, the developer or the downstream users (who may also be developers). As a user, I prefer the GPL. As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application. (And I'll take a BSD or LGPL'd library over a closed-source proprietary one so that I retain control over my own software; it sucks when your library vendor changes things, or it doesn't work quite as documented.)

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[chromatic (9471)]

Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?

False advertising

[Per Abrahamsen (1397)]

My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?

It is false advertising. Just like the other day, where I asked a free man to do some work for me. And he asked me in return how much I was willing to pay him. Pay? But he was supposed to be free!

Someone has totally misunderstand the concept of freedom.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[Sam Douglas (1106539)]

more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control copyright reserves for them, and they love it.

It is not limited to the GPL.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too

[debatem1 (1087307)]

This is supposed to be a bad thing, I take it? As I see it, the alternative for the software house would have been to just release their code. Open source, or pay up and fund future open source development. Seems like a pretty big win-win for the community to me.

Re:

[Simon Brooke (45012)]

I build a shiny widget, and release it under the GPL. Lots of people use my shiny widget - it becomes the gold standard for shiny widgets. Then some software house cuts a huge deal for software development with [insert name of immense multinational here]. The only trouble is, they need a shiny widget as part of the code. And damn, your one is the standard.

They come to you, and boy, you have them over a barrel. Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

Great imagination, laddie, shame about your grasp on reality.

The maximum value of any piece of software is what it would cost to do a clean-room reimplementation from scratch. Remember that a lot of the original GNU software was clean-room reimplementations of pre-existing UN*X utilities. On the whole it's always easier to do a clean-room reimplementation than to build the original system, because the re-implementors have a complete functional specification and a working prototype to test against.

In t

Three things that can stop reverse engineering

[tepples (727027)]

The maximum value of any piece of software is what it would cost to do a clean-room reimplementation from scratch.

Even a clean-room implementation won't save a developer in the following cases:

• software encumbered by patent law,
• software encumbered by anticircumvention law, or
• software that nearly everyone is presumed to have seen, making it prohibitive for a room to be made clean.

The third item is what made it difficult for Compaq to find good reverse engineers for its IBM PC BIOS cloning project: too many developers of application software for IBM PCs had already read through it, raising a rebuttable presumption of subconscious copying. This also causes trouble for developers of musical works, who are presumed to have heard their competitors' works on commercial music radio: see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

No!

[Rix (54095)]

The LGPL allows you to *link* code into commercial products. You still have to release the LGPL'd code, and anything you've added to it.

Re:Gnome

[kripkenstein (913150)]

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too.

It isn't just for commercial products. For example, until this latest development you couldn't write Qt apps that were GPL3, and KDE was having problems with using GPL3 code. The same problem will occur if you want to write using any FOSS license that isn't compatible with Trolltech's licensing for Qt.

The LGPL lets you use the platform to write whatever you want: free software under any license, proprietary software, etc. etc. Qt being under the control of Trolltech means that they decide what licenses you can use, free or otherwise. Now, Trolltech has been going in the direction of openness recently, and this announcement is more proof of that, but its product is still not as flexible as GTK, or the Linux kernel for that matter - you can write apps to run on Linux that use any license, just like GTK, and unlike Qt. I've posted it before, I'll post it again - would Linux be as successful today if it were licensed like Qt is, i.e., that you need to pay if you aren't GPLed (or on a shortlist of other FOSS licenses)?

Re:

[Creepy Crawler (680178)]

I think of it as mononucleosis.

Just give it 2 weeks and it'll clear up with the appropriate drugs.

Re:

[donscarletti (569232)]

Well, QT has been using GPL2 for quite a while now. However the big point of concern with some people is that QT does not use LGPL which would allow GPL incompatible licences to interoperate with the libraries like GTK does. Of course there is the argument, such as that that made by the FSF that ALL libraries should be GPL in order to encourage GPL compatible software to have an advantage, but in my mind having a platform open to crazy licences and/or closed software is more important and the fact that Trol

Re:

[rumith (983060)]

Not a valid point any longer: since Qt 4.3 Trolltech has added a so-called "GPL Exception". Basically, they have listed plenty of licenses, such as MIT and Apache, that you can legally use in your project while linking against the GPL-licensed version of Qt. Here: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html/ [trolltech.com]

Re:Gnome

[muuh-gnu (894733)]

From the point of view of a free software developer, LGPL and GPLv3 are both equally free. The differences come in only if you are a proprietary developer looking for ways to embrace, extend and close up somebody elses code. Thats really all there is to the additional "freedoms" you have with the LGPL. Freedom to make code unfree. A way to sue people who copy code closed up which once was free distributable.

I hope they still keep their commercial licence

[pembo13 (770295)]

Those devs deserver their salaries. I would purchase a license for their product for a big project even if it was to be open source.

The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut (126196)]

QT has two different licenses - their open-source license, and their commercial license. This is not a problem - I'm fine with this.

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library. This means that if, like me, you're someone trying to start a game studio looking for a basic windowing library for an editor, you have three basic choices:

* Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[Brandybuck (704397)]

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library.

Nonsense! You can use the commercial version to write BOTH commercial and Free Software.

Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it

Not entirely correct. Their GPL license includes disclaimers for several common Open Source licenses. You still need to open your source, but you are not limited to a single license.

As for the future of your app, decide before you start which license you will be using. It is not fair to the Qt developers (who get paid from license sales) to "cheat" by developing under the Free Software license and then switching to the commercial license when you release it.

You may use the GPL version for training and learning the library. And there is an Evaluation license if you wish to evaluate Qt for your own project. But when you start the actual coding of your software, purchase a commercial license if you intend for your software to commercial itself.

It's quid pro quo. Do unto Trolltech as you would have Trolltech do unto you.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[ZorbaTHut (126196)]

I think you're missing my point somewhat - I can't, as a small developer who doesn't even know if his software is going to be released commercially, start coding now and then purchase a license later. I'm a small game developer and my editor may be of no interest to anyone but me. But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.

Why should Trolltech mind if I bought a license later rather than sooner? They're still getting the license. One way just forces me to decide much earlier, when I may simply not have the information that I need to determine which is the right course of action. (Which, in this case, turns out to be "don't use QT".)

Re:

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

They mind because license prices are per developer using it. Otherwise, it's possible to buy just one commercial license for the final build, and use GPL licenses for all devs.

That said, if you can't afford Qt, then you just shouldn't be using it for a commercial product. It's a full featured and very good quality C++ library, and those don't come cheap. There are always other simpler, "budget" alternatives, such as wxWidgets.

Re:

[-Neko- (67564)]

But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.

Yes you can. If software does not see a public release, it has no license; the GPL explicitly differentiates between private software for your own use and that which is made available to the public. Trolltech make the same distinction.

You can develop the software using the free library, as long as it does not see the light of day outside of your own use.

Re:

[Brandybuck (704397)]

I am not a Trolltech employee, but I do work closely with them.. I have a commercial license. What you are telling me does not describe Trolltech. Not at all. I have never heard of a workstation inspection. What I have heard instead, is offering waivers for those developers who genuinely did change their mind later on. And I have seen cheaters. I have seen companies release a signficant product two months after purchasing a single license.

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

This seems like a very common use case, have you contacted them about this?

Re:

[filbranden (1168407)]

Actually, you can develop all your software using the GPL version (without distributing it) and then decide to distribute it under a commercial license.

The GPL actually requires that when you distribute a software you distribute the source code with it.

If you never distribute the software developed with the GPL version of Qt, you'll never have to give away your source.

When you have the finished version ready, you may purchase Qt license and distribute it commercially as closed source or anyway you wan

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing

[dschl (57168)]

Ummm.....no.

As others have noted already in this thread, that sort of behaviour is expressly forbidden under the QT licensing. The GPL licensing only applies to open source code developed with QT. If you wish to release commercially, you have to make that decision before you start writing code, and follow their commercial license terms (not the GPL). Their commercial license overview is fairly clear in stating that you cannot legally release commercial code that was developed using the GPL edition.

From Trolltech: [trolltech.com]

You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its authorized resellers before you start developing proprietary software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a proprietary product.

Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[MichaelCrawford (610140)]

I'm developing a Free Software audio application called Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com]. It will be GPL when it is released, but I'm not certain whether to make it GPLv2-only, or GPLv3-only. I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

I realize that GPLv3 was designed to address a lot of problems such as Tivoization, but in following the debate on the Debian-Legal mailing list, I'm not completely comfortable with choosing version three.

Trying to actually read the whole license to decide for myself just makes my head spin.

Note: there is no software to download yet; there won't be any until the alpha test version is ready.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog?

[Chandon Seldon (43083)]

I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

Consider very carefully what the actual potential costs and benefits of such a clause are before deciding not to use it.

One of the key advantages to using any version of the GPL is that your code can be combined with other code that was written separately and also released under the GPL. "Version X or later" code can always be combined. When the next version comes out, "Version X only" code will be uncombinable. That basically means that - unless your project is Linux sized and can get away with having its own license - "Version X or later" is the only answer that will allow your project to outlive your personal work on it.

Re:I am not applauding.

[AJWM (19027)]

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose..

Sure you can; just pay Trolltech for a commercial license. That's always been an option.

Re:I am not applauding.

[Fry-kun (619632)]

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.

Re:I am not applauding.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.

Actually, that's not exactly true.

Qt's commercial license indeed has a restriction, that you can not develop an application that was *previously* developed on the GPL version of Qt. So you can't develop your software against the GPLed Qt, test the waters, and only when there looks like to be profit, buy a commercial lincense and ship it.

This is a very reasonable restriction, but a restriction nontheless. So it's not "anything you want" as you claimed.

Re:I am not applauding.

[PeterBrett (780946)]

But by doing so I cannot make a GPL 2 app, or an other Open Source app.

( -1, RTFA )

Qt is now triple-licensed [trolltech.com]:

For clients and users who are somehow constrained to the GPLv2, nothing changes. Qt is now a triple-licensed toolkit: commercial, GPL version 2 and GPL version 3 (technically, the X11 version is even quadruple-licensed). In the Open Source version, you get to choose which one you want to apply to your code. And if neither option is suitable for your needs, theres always the commercial alternative. One other thing I would like to point out is the fact that we are future-proofing it. The new license headers say specifically that you may:

(at your option) use any later version of the GNU General Public License if such license has been publicly approved by Trolltech ASA (or its successors, if any) and the KDE Free Qt Foundation.

So, I hope your fears are thoroughly allayed, and you can go about your business today with piece of mind that at least on commercial software vendor understands your software licensing worries.

Re:I am not applauding.

[by Anonymous Coward]

You are plain wrong. Qt is released under GPL v3 and GPL v2. Just chose the license you prefer at your convenience.

Re:

[jellomizer (103300)]

In that case and if both versions will be equally kept up to date I am happy.

yeah, but it's free

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

They wrote QT, they want to distribute QT, and they chose terms to do it.

Obey their terms if you want to use their product. If not, find something else or write your own.

Re:

[Hooded One (684008)]

There are no separate versions. There is only one codebase for any given version of Qt, with the only difference being the license headers, and the few features that are only available in the commercial version (the website mentions "commercial database drivers and the Visual Studio Integration on Windows.") The Open Source edition is a single package containing all the applicable licenses.

(Or, for the short answer, "they will be.")

Re:

[Omnifarious (11933)]

Wow, way to spread FUD.

The GPLv3 requires that if you sell a piece of hardware that allows the software in it to be updated, and that software is covered by the GPLv3, the user must be able to update it with their own version as well as versions you supply. There's nothing about not allowing DRM.

This makes it easier for a user to bypass DRM for end-user devices like Kindle or the iPhone and such. But it doesn't disallow you from implementing it. So your point is basically as wrong as saying that the GP

Re:

[DaleGlass (1068434)]

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.

I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.

What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be u

You can still use GPL v2 with Qt

[knuty (136597)]

The press statement [trolltech.com] says:
  Qt is already available under the GPL v2 and will continue to be so in addition to the GPL v3.

Re:

[Artraze (600366)]

The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.

Re:

[ilikepi314 (1217898)]

I did not think the GPL3 said "DRM is evil", just that you have to make available a way of removing the DRM if the user requests it. Is my understanding completely off, or can someone support me on that?

I hate the idea of people saying if you are going to use these tools you can't do this with it

Well, that's exactly my complaint with DRM. You say this, and then complain that you aren't able to tell people "you have to get music with my DRM, you can't do what you want with it.". Seems a bit hypocritical. You want to use toolkits for what you want; when I get buy music, I want to listen to it where a

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

The summary implies at least that it was under GPL2 before. So what problem did you have with it then?

Do your research.

[AJWM (19027)]

Trolltech first released its Qt toolkit (for X11) under the GPL (v2) back in 2000. The Mac version was GPL'd in 2003 and the Windows version in 2005.

This announcement just means that they're adding GPL v3 to the licensing (it will remain licensed under GPL v2 also).

Re:

[bug1 (96678)]

"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression. ...
But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."

So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?

Re:

[pherthyl (445706)]

Well Java language bindings are officially supported: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/jambi [trolltech.com]
Also python is very well maintained: http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/pyqt/ [riverbankcomputing.co.uk]
And you can do a lot of scripting with QtScript.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[pherthyl (445706)]

I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer

Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you really can't spare the extra ~5mb of ram, what's the issue? You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?

less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice

You do realize that Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL, right? Which means, that your computer has two different toolkits installed! Egad! Quick, uninstall Openoffice!
The only reason it integrates into Gnome is because there is a GTK compatibility layer, just like there is a Qt compatibility layer for KDE.

Not to mention Firefox uses XUL and XBL. GTK can be used to render some interface widgets, but that is minor in comparison.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less)

[pherthyl (445706)]

All of them running over Gtk.

Over GTK? No, the exact opposite. GTK is a shell on top (Openoffice also has a Qt shell). And you think that doesn't contribute to bloat? It's worse, because now you've actually got two whole toolkits loaded in memory at any given time. So don't think you're really saving anything.

I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk

Well when I'm running KDE, I change the colours and fonts, and those colours get applied to GTK apps if I tick the box..

Re:

[m50d (797211)]

Although Konqueror is a good browser, it's still light-years behind Firefox. Firefox is my bread and butter nowadays, as I suspect it is for many others. I couldn't live with it, and as long as this is true, I couldn't be without Gtk either.

Just out of interest, what makes you prefer firefox? I switched to konqueror as my primary browser nearly two years ago and haven't looked back - so much faster and "cleaner"-looking.

Re:

[Chandon Seldon (43083)]

Every GNU+Linux distribution (which includes Ubuntu and Red Hat) already ships a bunch of GPLv3 applications. From the perspective of companies that distribute general purpose operating systems, GPLv3 is strictly better than GPLv2 because of the internationalized wording and the "contributors can't screw the community with patents" provisions.

Re:

[muuh-gnu (894733)]

> Even Microsoft doesn't get to collect extra fees for commercial software development on
> Windows.

They recoup it by collecting extra fees for using windows. (_Both_ from you and all users of your software.)

> GTK is much better suited for a general-purpose library on Linux than QT simply because it
> allows you to develop "anything" using it.

The only difference is that GTK allows you to close code up and sue your users who share it with other people. Kinda weird for a "free software" library to f