Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt 240
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.'"
Re:Gnome (Score:2, Informative)
Arguably Gnome is the less open desktop, since GTK is licensed under the lesser GPL.
Re:Gnome (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure you can; just pay Trolltech for a commercial license. That's always been an option.
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:5, Informative)
Do your research. (Score:5, Informative)
This announcement just means that they're adding GPL v3 to the licensing (it will remain licensed under GPL v2 also).
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:3, Informative)
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 GPLv2 doesn't allow you to make money on your software.
You can still use GPL v2 with Qt (Score:5, Informative)
Qt is already available under the GPL v2 and will continue to be so in addition to the GPL v3.
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:2, Informative)
The problem I have with QT's licensing (Score:2, Informative)
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 distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it
* Shell out $$$ for the commercial library, whether or not you'll ever need to distribute it
* Use a different library
Obviously I've chosen #3, but I can't help but think that perhaps Trolltech lost a sale there - I probably would have used QT if it had been a viable option, and if I'd ever decided to distribute the editor I likely would have gladly paid the licensing fee. It's a bizarre licensing decision.
Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
No! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
( -1, RTFA )
Qt is now triple-licensed [trolltech.com]:
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:Yes it is (Score:2, Informative)
Last time I checked Visual Studio was not a multiplatform development environment, whereas Qt is.
And come on ! How can you compare Qt with Adobe Flex ?
Re:I am not applauding. (Score:3, Informative)
(Or, for the short answer, "they will be.")
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (Score:3, Informative)