[FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD

[Chuck Swiger]

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 at trolltech.com
Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance...
In-reply-to: <42C2BB0A.5050705 at mac.com>
To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger at mac.com>
Cc: info at trolltech.com
Message-id: <20050629185029.63912559 at 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 at mac.com>
To: Charles Swiger <cswiger at mac.com>
Cc: info at trolltech.com
Message-id: <20050629195119.DCBF32A3 at 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