Trolltech to Extend Dual-License to Qt/Windows 436
scc writes "
Trolltech announced today
that Qt 4 will be available on Windows under the GPL.
While Trolltech has long dual-licensed
Qt on X11 (Linux, various Unixes), Mac, and embedded,
Windows developers have had no options other than a commercial license."
KDE on Cygwin (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:5, Informative)
I think by "use" they mean linking the library to your application. The application developer is the user of Qt, not the application user.
If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL, you must purchase a commercial licence.
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:0, Informative)
Plus if you try and use the GPL version for commercial development it is as eay as running the strings command on your binary and greping for the appropriate words....they will catch you.
I have used QT in both open source and now commercial ventures. They have a great business model. I was allowed me to test the software for a couple of years on open source projects and then when the time came to start my own business the choice was very simple. QT.
Re:GPL Qt for Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free? (Score:2, Informative)
QT has been available on win32 for some time now (Score:2, Informative)
i've taken a number of qt-based linux apps off kde-apps.org and recompiled on windows - as long as the developers stick to the Qt API, its a breeze to port!
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:1, Informative)
No, you received Qt under the GPL, so you may only distribute it under the GPL. This means any program you link with the GPL'd Qt will have to be GPL-compliant (not necessarily GPL itself, but it usually is). This absolutely prevents "proprietary" or "non-open" Qt programs for zero cost, as it's supposed to.
If you want to develop your app with Qt, and do not want to share your source (which many commercial apps won't want to), you have to get a version of the Qt libraries that you can redistribute without requiring your code to be open. Fortunately, Qt can also be had for a non-GPL license, but in that case, it costs money. And that's the reason for dual-licensing.
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kindows???? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Kindows???? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL Qt for Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:1, Informative)
Here's my question: what if I want to make commercial software released under the GPL, and provide the source to my paying customers, do I have to buy a license?
No, just use the GPL one. "Commercial" in this case is "non-open", not "for money".
What if I don't sell the software but provide support for 120/hr?
Easy: precisely the same. No licenses need be bought.
What if I GPL my software, including the Qt libs, and my customer turns around and sells it to 4000 other people, with source under the GPL? Do they have to get a commercial license?
No, they received under the GPL, they distribute under the GPL. No problem whatsoever. If they can make money off this, more power to them.
Once something is GPL'd, it's not that easy to turn around and say: "Woah, sorry, no you can't use it anymore."
Have you even read the philosophy behind the GPL? That forever-libre thingy is intentional!
I think their plan is half-baked.
On Linux, it's been fully baked for quite some time. Qt is used, for example, by KDE (GPL license) and Opera for Linux (non-GPL, I presume).
Re:Ease transition (Score:2, Informative)
If you're porting an existing Qt-based app, that's good news I guess, but if not, I think you should just use wxWidgets. The license for Qt is too restrictive, and well, their interpretation of GPL, as others have noticed here, is kind of absurd. It's GPL, but not really. Depends. Isn't that against what GPL is really all about?
Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:3, Informative)
It has nothing to do with commercial or non commercial, rather, it has to do with binary-only (proprietary) or source-available-under-GPL.
Re:Kindows???? (Score:4, Informative)
-Benjamin Meyer
Trolltech is NOT trolling. (Score:3, Informative)
So, if you write GPL code, OK. You want to relicense, OK. But the commercial version of Qt states,
NOTE: Qt Free Edition is licensed under the terms of the GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time, developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using Trolltech's publicly licensed Qt Free Edition, Licensee must comply with Trolltech's requirements (see http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-x11 .html) and license
such Application(s) (or any portions derived there from) under the
terms of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License
version 2 (the "GPL") a copy of which is located at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1 (i.e., any Product(s) and/or
parts, components, portions thereof developed using GPL licensed
software, including Qt Free Edition, must be licensed under the terms
of the GPL, and the GPL-based source code must be made available upon
request).
They will NOT license you a commercial version if you try to do it. They will withdraw your commercial license if you do this. See? You do this, you are left with only a GPL distributable. They also said in their email release that they will enfore their license. So please, don't try to pull a fast one on Trolltech.
You have your rights to relicense software. They have their rights to license their software to you.
Re:I wish trolltech was associated with canopy (Score:2, Informative)
Win32 Qt GPL'ed before (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true, I installed Qt3 on my Windows machine and I had the option of using the GPL.
I came on a CD with this book http://vig.prenhall.com:8081/catalog/academic/pro
Re:I wish trolltech was associated with canopy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:4, Informative)
No. If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL and you want to distribute it, you must purchase a commercial license.
Remember the GNU GPL does not restrict any kind of use whatsoever unless you want to distribute.
Re:Ease transition (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:3, Informative)
You do not have to buy a commercial license. Distribute to your (paying) customers the source code under the GPL. Two things happen. (1) Your GPL program may be linked and distributed with The GPL'ed QT. (2) Your (paying) customers can redistribute your source code because they received it under the GPL.
Because of (1), you get the benefit of the GPL'ed QT. You don't have to pay TrollTech.
Because of (2), your customers get the benefit of the GPL'ed YOUR PROGRAM. Once one customer buys it, they can freely redistribute your GPL'ed program.
What is half baked? This is exactly the business model that MySQL uses with their database drivers. The MySQL server may be free, but you still have to LINK a MySQL driver to your program. Since the driver is GPL (but NOT LGPL) you can only link a GPL'ed program, or buy a commercial license.
If you don't want your customers re-distributing your source freely, then you need to either (1) don't give them source, or (2) give them source under some non-GPL terms. Either way, you cannot then link with the GPL'ed QT. So you would need a QT under a license that allows either of the options in this paragraph.
Re:Trolltech is NOT trolling. (Score:3, Informative)
Shame their commercial license is so incredibly overpriced... believe I'll learn wxWindows instead.
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:5, Informative)
- your fix points out an actual bug or deficiency, but is for numerous reasons not something TT wants to apply against their source code. In this case, TT will probably implement a fix for that actual bug, and most likely not use your patch as it came.
- the code you submitted is substantial, correct, of excellent quality and follows TT's own coding style. Then Trolltech will most likely ask you to transfer the copyright for this code to them before they include your code, or to provide the code under a suitable license. Then they will send you a job offer
The source code of the Open Source edition of Qt is identical to the source code of the Commercial edition of Qt, so if there is any contributed code in Qt then it went through the above process.
Re:Ease transition (Score:3, Informative)
Interview with Trolltech's president (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:1, Informative)
The community that TT accepts changes from is largely that of core KDE developers, who already know the IP situation and they deal with it accordingly. They don't otherwise accept patches or changes from random sources.
Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (Score:3, Informative)
So, here's the definitive answer: A company can take TrollTech's GPL'd QT, develop internal applications for free, and never give the source to anybody. If an employee distributes a copy, they are doing so without a license and the rights given by the GPL are void; so the company can't be caught in a situation where they are forced to suddenly open up their application after accidental distribution.
It sucks, but that's the GPL as it stands. I think this is a HUGE loophole in the GPL, and it should definitely be closed in GPL v3. The code should always be licensed to individuals, never corporations.
TrollTech is taking a big gamble here; probably they are being pushed into this by the projects out there working to port QT/X11 to Windows for KDE ports. It was only a matter of time, really. I think that they will see an unfortunately large revenue drop as a result of this. But on the bright side, KDE 4 will probably be ported to Windows in short order.
If only it didn't 'draw' it's widgets (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It is "bad" for Linux, period. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm getting a chuckle out of your debate with that fanboy. But here goes. :)
All I've been discussing is an unencumbered widget API so that applications can code to a standard target. This is a very specific area and that's all I am talking about here. We don't need any libraries other than those required to interface with the OS, basically we need to be launched, we need fopen() and friends, malloc() and friends, and we need a graphics API that supports windows and controls.
If that's all you need, why not wxWidgets? You can link to it statically and you're safe, as far as I know. I know the LGPL has some crap about providing object files in case the user wants to recompile underlying libraries, but that's been an obsolete method for quite awhile now. It's not necessary. If someone asks for them, you just say "If you're asking, that menas you're running on a supported platform and it's not my problem" and you ask your lawyer how it's legal that way. :)
As far as I know, linking to wxWidgets doesn't immediately incur the problems you associate with the LGPL because GTK because a system library at that point. Maybe it will anyway, I'm not completely certain, but that's provided as one of the selling points of wx anyway.
I am agitating for a standard, with-the-OS, and so always-there-to-use, widget capability. Windows has this. The Mac has this. Linux does not have this. I would like Linux to have this.
Man oh man does this irritate me. You can expect Qt or GTK+, but that's it. You can usually expect both at the same time (neither KDE nor GNOME satisfies everybody at the same time). Yeah, this little issue frustrates me too. Furthermore, I just can't stand targetting GTK. I've been targetting wxWidgets instead (using wxPython anyway, so I'm the Linux version of a VB hack). I'm *so* happy Qt is going to be GPL on Windows now. (I only write open source stuff, so this is obviously not an issue for me)
As far as what Qt accomplishes, you're still safe, so far as I know, except you have to buy a Qt license to use Qt in your application. Could get expensive, but numerous folks have reported "I think our TCO was lower with Qt!". So there's at least a high level of satisfaction fo rpeople that use it. :)
I don't personally think it's unreasonable for a free platform to require someone to pay in order to distribute non-free software of their own making for that platform. Call it what you want, I don't see how it's unreasonable. The point of the platform, unlike Windows, was never to make anybody money. The point was always freedom (except in the case of the kernel itself, but you'll find the point still had nothing to do with making money for anyone). regardless of what that other guy said, if you (or any other developer) isn't willing to deal with what we've built and the for-pay alternatives that get you onto this platform aren't good enough for you, then too bad for both of us. And I think we're better off accepting those consequences, because you can't come much closer than you have (for reasons you've said you have but haven't detailed, which is fine, they're probably confidential), and we have no obligation to come any closer than we have.
The thing you and yours need to be asking yourself is, "Is it a real possibility that I'll have to accept these terms someday? Can I hold out for better terms? Can I afford to?" If the answer is "yes", then there's not even any reason for us to try to make a deal. If the answer is "no", then you're not in the bargaining position you might think you're in.
Re:If only it didn't 'draw' it's widgets (Score:2, Informative)
On Windows XP and better, the wimp theme engine for GTK will draw using the native theme painting system.
Obviously not the same as using EDIT/BUTTON and friends. Anyway I think what you mention is actually a red herring. Countless common Windows apps, like that cheap ass Adobe photo program, scanner software, and things using the godawful Codejock toolkit, "draw there own skinable widgets". Look at Windows Media Player. Look at Acrobat Reader 6.0 (a definitive case of 2nd system effect in the GUI). I get a laugh out of the complaints of GUI inconsistency issues on X, a common household Windows system is in just as bad shape with the GUI poutpourri.
Re:Trolltech's ongoing retention of Ralph Yarro (Score:2, Informative)
Moreover, such agreements, at least if the founders have done their homework, normally do not let a single minority investor control the strategy or operations of the company in any way.
As a side note Norwegian law makes it possible to exclude a board member from certain board discussions when there is a conflict of interest.
Regarding your questions, I can only refer to my previous posting.
Please understand that I cannot say much more.
Trolltech's founders and first employees were developers with roots in the open source community. Those developers know very well where they came from and they still run and control the company.